16 Things...

Two weeks ago, I said that I would try to compile a list of a few observations from an administrative point of view that correspond to the wants and desires (and subsequent impact on morale) as suggested by faculty and staff from across the country. 


I was a little surprised by how few comments there were, given the apparent popularity of  the posting. It was the third most-read posting (375) of all time and it rose to this spot after just two weeks. Interesting...


I have to admit that creating this companion post proved to be more difficult than I imagined. After some thinking and some research, everything that I thought of for my list could be followed with a great big "so what". 


I did, however, find a bit of wisdom relative to administrative work that makes very good sense to me and I suspect many will agree.

Ultimately, the character of 

the [fill in the job title]'s job is such 

that, if they're good, 

you don't even notice that they're there.

I thought very seriously about clicking the "post" button and ending this thought right here. However, that would have been a bit too easy. I'm opting for something in the middle. 


Morale shifts are interesting things. It's often difficult to point to one event, one issue, or one particular condition that causes a shift in morale, in either direction. Usually, it seems to be a combination of small issues and changes rather than a precipitating event.  In my experience, change, regardless of whether the change is positive, has a fair chance of lowering morale. We don't like change. Even those of us that say we do, really we don't. Except for babies.


Ironically, the absence of change is just as likely to have the same consequence.


This makes to job of those that feel an obligation to pay attention to morale a bit tenuous. Take the list of 48 things from last week as example. My read of the list led me to the conclusion that the contributors, especially those that spoke in great detail, were most disappointed, upset, or discouraged by actions that affected them personally. Decisions were made, messages were communicated (or not), and rules changed that affected the individual (or in some cases, the group) in ways perceived as less than positive.


Brilliant deduction, right?


Many of the posters asked for very general and reasonable things; for leaders to listen, trust, support, share pain, uphold standards, and to be fair. This is a very simple list of expectations that are darn near impossible to argue against. 


That is until we put a real-life circumstance around it. 


Conceptions of fairness, honesty, and support change dramatically as we move from general application to the specific.


Consider:

• When is it ok to stop trusting someone? 
• At what point does the time for listening conclude and action begin? 
• Are there times when a decision needs to be made on the basis of something other than fairness? 
• By what measure should significant decisions be made? In other words, when should the good of the individual (or group) outweigh the good of the College, or vice-versa?  

Obviously, there isn't always an easy answer and your response probably would change depending on the situation. Thankfully, the basis upon which most decisions are made is fairly clear. We have history, data, the law, or internal policies among others to guide the way. 


Sometimes we don't and for those times, some sort of framework, a set of core values or a moral obligation drives the process.

Far too often, the basis of a decision is not clearly communicated to those affected. Sometimes for good reason, but this is typically the exception rather than the rule. 


Most often, the tasks of communicating the "why" and "how" of a decision is communicated is where the trouble begins. In a large organization, we rely on structures that represent the various constituencies on campus to help communicate. Sometimes, those channels are less effective that they could/should be. Sometimes, those affected don't hear (or listen) for the message until they are directly impacted. 


Not long ago, I heard a person describe what goes on in the College as “controlled chaos”. The more I thought about that particular comment, the more it made sense, although I’m still not sure if it was meant as a positive observation or not. 


I view the College and our reason for being as a nucleus. Around that nucleus, we have offices, departments, processes, initiatives, activities, projects and committees, in different and sometimes unpredictable orbits, all at different speeds and on different trajectories. If we look to science for a reasonable method to deal with the control of chaos, we find basically two approaches.


The first involves small, carefully chosen nudges that are applied to the system once per cycle, to maintain it near the desired orbit. Think strategic and annual planning, evaluations, academic and support assessment, performance indicators, and Higher Learning Commission visits.


The second method involves a continuous signal, injected into the system whose intensity is practically zero as those orbits are close to the desired path, but increases in intensity when things drift away from the desired orbit. Think PCA and it's subcommittee structure, our policies and procedures, committee chairs, staff meetings, and College Council. 


The secret to the game is to find places to stand where we can see all these different trajectories and orbits -- and to have conversations. These conversations are about making agreements with the people that are charged with either nudging the system or providing continuous signal because our view of an event and the conclusions we draw could be significantly different. Proper orbit is a function of perspective.


Logic dictates that best way to operate is to consult each other in terms of what we see and when, as a function of where we stand relative to the nucleus. Multiple perspectives make for better outcomes.



Unfortunately, in this process there can be a natural friction between those doing the nudging and those being nudged. Historically we, as individuals, tend to think less about the big picture perspective in lieu of holding to a smaller picture. Ultimately, we find it more difficult to forgo the smaller perspective when it threatens the larger. This is where morale lives.


Of course, the keystone of morale (and this whole discussion) is "How". How we go about nudging and injecting signal has the largest effect on morale. Judging by the "48 things", it appears that all too often the "how" is accomplished in the absence of listening, trust, support, shared pain, adherence to standards, and fairness. 


I have a very simple list of ways to gauge morale.
• Do the faculty and staff  want to be here? 
• Is there unity around mission?
• Are new staff members welcomed? 
• Do we have celebrations? 
• Do we treat mistakes as learning experiences, or opportunities to criticize? 
• Do we encourage experimentation and encourage risk-taking?
• Is there laughter?  Are people smiling? 
• And finally, is there sufficient opportunity understand and engage (if desired) in the decision-making process? 


Every college and university  has a history and a culture. The very best of these institutions develop trust among the faculty, the staff, and all constituencies --  students, community members, business leaders, trustees, and each other.  This is my job, and yours as well.


In closing, I present my companion list of 16 things "on the off chance that a well-meaning faculty and staff is interested". They apply to us all.

Acknowledge the interdependence of the components of the College.

Listen before you act.

Consult with relevant individuals, groups, and each other.

Take the time to be sensitive to our constituencies.

Make every effort to serve their basic needs.

Do not distort reality to achieve your own ends, even good ones.

Correct misconceptions and incorrect interpretation.

Respect others; do not diminish them in an attempt to make your point or win support for your perspective.

Resolve rather than exploit conflict.

Trust others until such time that they prove unworthy of your trust.

Help others to realize their full potential.

Set measurable and achievable goals.

Stand by others who in striving to meet common goals may make honest mistakes.

Accept responsibility.

Be Civil.

Share the leadership task.

(10,821)
"I think kids these days are watching too much TV. The other day I saw two kids playing. The little girl said to the boy, “Let’s play house.” He told her, “Alright. But I get to be House.”

Forget Green Jobs

On the recommendation of Vikki Crnekovic, I am reposting this article from Inside Higher Education. This is the gist of the Sustainabilty Committee's CETL series this semester. I would encourage you to attend.

Triple net...

Forget Green Jobs

January 25, 2011

By David Schejbal

Higher education is hustling to prepare students for green jobs. We’re congratulating ourselves for teaching green job skills. For studying recycling. For protecting endangered species. For teaching conservation. All this is laudable, critically important, and helpful to individuals, companies and the economy. But none of it is enough.

We’re teaching skills, but failing to lead the world into a new way of thinking that must govern the behavior of all of the residents of the earth if we are to leave an economically and environmentally viable planet to our children.

Understanding the intersections of the systems at work — natural systems, social systems, and business systems — is critical to every aspect of how we live and work. For instance, if we recognize and understand that the earth is a closed system, then we must look at manufacturing very differently; we must look at the making of stuff (whatever it might be) as a loop and not as a line. The manufactured product, all of its byproducts, and every bit of the waste is ours to keep forever. We inhale it, we drink it, we walk on it, and we eat it in one form or other. Short of resettling on Mars, we cannot escape it.

The recent crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is a particularly visible, but hardly unique, example of our inseparability from the world in which we live. Long after the public tires of hearing about our mess in the Gulf, the ripple effects will continue across local beaches and economies as well as in America’s waning confidence about the readiness of corporate leadership to respond to environmental issues. A recent national Harris survey shows that 82 percent of Americans believe that in order to remain globally competitive, U.S. business leaders must understand how to manage business in an environmentally sustainable manner. Yet only 13 percent of U.S. adults are confident that corporate America has the knowledge to make decisions that consider long-term impacts on the environment.

A key lesson learned from the crisis? That everything we do has an environmental impact of one sort or other, and all environmental changes impact us. It’s for this reason that every job is a green job. It’s not just the solar-powered battery manufacturer and the biofuel engineer and the recycling manager who have green jobs. Marketers, human resource directors, supply chain managers, and even university faculty confront sustainability issues every day.

For too long, our focus has been on preparing students to take on "green jobs," so college after college boasts about creating a green technology degree program or a sustainability studies major or a green M.B.A. and so forth. Teaching green skills is like teaching kids to toss a ball and swing a bat and never teaching the rules of baseball. They can become accomplished practitioners of these skills and not understand how to apply their knowledge to lead their teams to success.

The world works in terms of interconnected systems, and we have to teach our students how to think in those ways. Unfortunately, systems thinking is not readily taught at any level, and most people tend not to think in terms of systems. In part it’s because thinking in terms of systems is difficult and complicated; there are many more variables than when we look at linear processes and drill down within the disciplines. It’s also inconvenient to think in terms of systems. We would have to assume far more personal responsibility for our behavior — including consumption — if our thinking was focused on complete systems and the full consequences of our actions. It’s just not much fun to think in terms of systems.

First and foremost, we need to understand the cycle. And to understand the cycle is to have a systems understanding of natural, social, and economic processes. This requires more than just new skills; it requires a new literacy.

This new systems literacy will require a holistic understanding of our relationship to the natural, social, and economic world around us. Copernicus taught us that our planet is not the center of the universe. We must now come to understand that humans are not at the center of the earth but rather a highly impactful part of it. If our impact becomes part of our daily lexicon, and if we are able to incorporate and monetize the full consequences of our actions into the economy, then we will be in a much better position to develop a systems economy that creates economic incentives in all parts of all of the systems that govern our lives. This is what is required to ensure that our children’s futures will be no worse than our present, and this is where the jobs of the future will be.

So I return to where I began this perspective. We need a new literacy, a new way of talking and thinking about the world around us, and that new perspective must govern our behavior.

Education is just beginning to develop curriculums that help people acquire these new skills and this new perspective. The University of Wisconsin launched an online bachelor of science in sustainable management last fall. It focuses on thinking in terms of natural, social, and economic systems. For example, with "Triple Bottom Line Accounting," not only do students gain a basic knowledge of the preparation of financial statements and their analytical use, but they explore how this accounting information is applied by managers in the decision-making process helping organizations meet the triple bottom line (strong profits, healthy environment, and vital communities).It’s a great start. A few other universities have also begun to incorporate these principles into their curriculums. However, we have only begun to think this way, and the world around us is changing much faster than we would like.

Bill Sullivan, the president of the Council of Environmental Deans and Directors, sees the Harris survey referenced above as a call to increase the diversity of environmental programs as much as possible to prepare students for the wide range of jobs that require this knowledge to succeed. "Future success rises and falls on access. Our job as educators now is to focus on increasing access and flexibility for the curricular foundations needed to develop this new literacy and world view, and we need to deliver those programs to students of all ages so that we can begin to make the kind of impacts that will improve the chances that the future will be even better than the past."

That’s not just a green job. That’s everyone’s job.

David Schejbal is dean of continuing education, outreach and e-learning at the University of Wisconsin-Extension. He is a member of the Council of Environmental Deans and Directors.


(10621)

48 Things...

On January 9th, a new thread in a discussion forum entitled Want to build our morale? appeared on the Chronicle of Higher Education website.

For those of us that work at Parkland, you can access the paid edition of the Chronicle via the Parkland Library website by following this path (thanks to Librarian Sherry Cmiel): 

Go to www.parkland.edu/library ---> click on "Articles and Databases" ----> Scroll down to the dropdown box that contains "Education" ---> Choose the Chronicle ---> Enter your Parkland Login and Password.

The creator of the thread began by saying: 

"The thread on faculty morale committees prompted me to start this one.  A common theme was that overworked faculty are asked to come up with proposals for improving morale that are then ignored by the very people who called for the committee.  So let's take at a top-down approach on the off chance that a well-meaning president/chancellor/CAO is interested. Let's share our advice on improving faculty morale. If we’re lucky, someone who actually hires and evaluates upper administration may read our advice." 

Over the next four days, some 48 suggestions were logged by participants. Most are very interesting and useful, some appear to be a bit idiosyncratic, and some reference situations that occur at a university versus a college. 

Regardless, given our discussions at Parkland, I thought it an interesting topic for this week. What follows are the unedited suggestions, with the exception of the numbering scheme. It got off-track in the forum in several places (10a - 10d, 16 is missing, 20a, and 32a). 

I'll present it without comment in favor of responding to your thoughts after reading this. I'm really looking forward to what I believe will be an interesting discussion. If it works out, I'm going to try to compile a corollary; a few observations from an administrative point of view for the following week.

Without further 延遲:

1.  Make the sacrifices you expect from us.  If budgets are tight, take a hit.  If your faculty make 70% of what their peers make, you should not be making more than 70% of what your peers make.   If the library is cutting journals, don't get a new carpet.   Don't use more space, staff, and other resources when you are asking others to make do with less.   People will make huge sacrifices when they are part of a group that is working for something they value, but no one wants to be a chump. 

2.  Listen.  Reward truth-telling, especially when it's not what you want to hear.  All the committees and surveys are a waste of time and money if people know you ignore or punish those who disagree with you.  It only takes one incident with one person to make people fear and distrust you.  You simply can't be an effective leader if people are afraid to tell you bad news.  

You lose power if you only get information from other administrators.  Talk to people and ask them what makes your place special.  Ask the old timers what has changed and stayed the same.  Ask the folks who have been at a few places to compare.  Find out who the best teachers, researchers, workhorses, faculty leaders, grant-getters, student leaders, etc. are and talk to them.   Don't forget your part-timers, they may be the only instructors you see during the first years when students (and their parents) decide whether to stay.  

Spend time with these people.  Actual  time.  With your mouth closed.  Don't talk over them, don't try to justify things, don't get defensive.  Yes, you will hear some self-serving lies, whining, and crackpot ideas, but you will know what the concerns are and how many people share them.  These things are important to know.  It takes time, but so does reading an extra stack of abysmal freshman essays a week, adding 5 people to a full lab, picking up the service duties once handled by people who were replaced by part-timers.

Give people a way to give you information with complete anonymity.  If you find that it is being used a lot, it's because people don't trust you.  Fix that.

3.  Empower people.  If there's a policy or situation that reduces the quality of life for a lot of people, even if it's small, change it.  When people see that their input causes change, they are happier.  A forumite mentioned a package delivery issue that wasted faculty time and energy.  Paying someone minimum wage to deliver packages for 4 hours a day would not only allow those faculty members to spend their time and energy on what they're hired to do, it would let them see that they had a voice in how their campus is run.  

4.  Never lie.  One lie, and you lose credibility that is almost impossible to rebuild.  If you don't know, tell us so.  If you are going to do something we won't like, tell us that, explain why, and apologize.  Just don't lie about it.  The short-term gain is never worth the long-term cost.

Good people respond to genuine respect with respect.  If they know you are listening and make decisions with the best interests of the institution in mind, they will support you, even when they don't get what they want.  

5. Solicit faculty opinion both formally and informally. A dean should have lunch or coffee with a random faculty member or two every week. 

6. Look for ways to cut unneeded committee work and paper work. I just landed a grant--do I really need to attend three days of training on how to use Banner Finance? Can't the grants office (which is taking a cut after all) do it for me?

7.  Be brave.  Don't kowtow to social pressures or antiquated patterns of behavior.  

8.  Seek out the silent members.  They often see things a moving mouth doesn't.

9.  Don't overload students into my already overburdened sections. 

But if you must, at least acknowledge (directly to me--in person--looking me in the eyes) that you are in fact aware that you've upped the seat counts steadily over the last five years. Acknowledge that continuing to do so compromises the quality of education for those students who believe you've done them a favor by forcing them into my class. 

Then tell me what you plan to do to rectify the situation. I'll take one (or, as it happens, a few dozen) for the team, but I need to know that the team has a fighting chance somewhere down the line...

10. Make it clear, repeatedly, that you support academic freedom.

10a. Be candid with faculty when you need their support. You'd be surprised at how much backing can be gotten for things that might not yield benefits to all, but are necessary measures for a greater cause. Stop using the term, "transparency." It is quite silly. Be honest. How about "selective disclosure."

10b. Do not undermine faculty careers by piling service on them only to develop amnesia at tenure time yet celebrate all that was accomplished by the people whom you just fired. Also, remember to admit that the said faculty did not elect to waste time of huge service projects. You threatened them and based on what happened to those who have refused in the past, we already know the damage you can do.

10c. Teach a class a required, unpopular class or two before you decide if one's teaching evaluations are an accurate reflection of student learning rather than if students are merely satisfied customers. Matter of fact, TEACH.

10d. Do not make faculty spend time attending presentations of potential dean and provost candidates, have them fill out detailed evaluation forms of candidates, and when one of the candidates is voted overwhelming choice, you decide to hire none of them and begin the search all over again.

11. Lay it out on the table: University finances--and exactly how they are spent--should be open-book to anyone who wants to read it and offer advice. You've got a "company" full of highly educated and intelligent people--hey, why not use that to solve some of the problems? In other words, crowd-source the problem and allow faculty input into solving it.

12. Don't use managerial-speak and think we don't know what it means. A 'furlough' is still a pay cut.

13. Acknowledgements of success can go a long way. Okay, so we're not getting merit raises this year, but why don't you send a little *personal* email and say that you NOTICED that we busted our butts this year, brought in all that grant money, taught that extra course for nothing, etc. Make sure department heads reward success. It doesn't have to be money--a "thank you", a "well done" or just an acknowledgement goes a heck of a long way.

14. Don't you dare tell us to take furlough days only when we are not teaching classes. At least a furlough gives the worker some time off. Schedule the furloughs all on the same day and close campus. Let the students feel what happens when you refuse to fund basic government services.

15. Do not pour millions upon millions of dollars into new construction of unnecessary buildings and statues of sports heroes while you are freezing salaries (here comes year three), increasing class sizes, merging departments, cutting summer teaching opportunities, and refusing to replace retired faculty. It is despicable to fund these things while you poormouth basic faculty needs. If the money for all this lavish excess is coming from alumni donations, then tell the freaking alumni that the faculty are miserable and overburdened, and they should endow several named chairs instead of building monstrous monuments to themselves.

17. Uphold academic standards in admissions decisions. Do not accept grossly unprepared students, who typically drop out in year 1, just because they provide a short-term shot of tuition dollars.

18. Uphold academic standards in grade appeals and academic misconduct hearings.

19. Send out the open house and recruiting events schedule WELL IN ADVANCE. For heaven's sake, you know these dates months in advance. Is it really so hard to email department chairs and program coordinators the schedule? You cannot expect people to drop everything, plan a shtick and display, and rope current students into being around and visible for these things when you tell me on Thursday that we're having an open house on Saturday. (OK, this one belongs in the Venting Thread, but it is relevant here too).

20. Allow new programs, centers and institutes to develop from the ground up, rather than dictating their creation from the top down. The former results in programs, centers, and institutes consisting of one individual, some poor director or coordinator with no resources, who very low morale because no one wants to be part of the new program, center, or institute.

20a. Say something concrete about enrollment rather than repeated vague "your numbers are too low" threats. When questioned "What numbers would be acceptable?" give an honest answer.

21. If the school has financial challenges 5 out of the last 10 years, then it is not just owing to the roll of the dice. Figure out what is wrong with the underlying economic model, make that clear to everyone, and figure out how to fix it.

22. If the future of the school means expanding into programs A, B, and C, then fund programs A, B, and C. Running them on a shoestring is not kidding anyone.

23. Give us a raise.

24. Give sincere praise. Everyone is working hard. A pat on the back goes a long way when the end is no where in sight.

25. Exercise humanity. People who are working at the limits will take mistakes.

26. Get a sense of humor. Walpole was right. “Life is a tragedy for those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.” Think about it.

27. Make certain that tenure and promotion requirements are in line with teaching and service requirements -- in the real world.

28. If you want to increase the institutional research profile, then cough up the money, time and RAs to make it possible for your faculty to publish more. Don't just increase the expectations.

29. Release the final schedule more then just a few weeks before the end of the semester. Say, at the beginning so they can be incorporated into our syballi.

30. Don't demand we all use the new grading software when you have yet to offer training seminars on it

31. Don't demand we use the online system unless you're going to cough up the IT support to get it working and keep it working at all hours of the day and night, when students and I are accessing it. I do not have time to make multiple trips over to IT so they can "take a look at what's wrong" with my account, when what's wrong is that it's a piece of crap that you paid some hack company and the IT people are understaffed and undertrained.

32. Don't badmouth faculty who don't use the spiffy software to students. Come to think of it, crack down on staff, advisors, and student services people who badmouth faculty who make pedagogical choices they don't get, adhere to acaademic standards, or won't excuse students from class to run fundraisers for athletics (ala high school)

32a. If you create a "policy" for your unit, make sure the creation of it involved shared governance so that it's not just an administrative fiat. Also, make sure that it is in writing in a publically accessible format, such as a faculty handbook or on the unit website. The policy doesn't exist if it's not in writing. That's just tyranny.

33. Don't tell faculty that you know better than they do how to teach a class that: A. You've never taught. B. Is outside your discipline. C. You've never even taken and couldn't explain what it was about. This is more than academic freedom. It's respecting the professional expertise for which faculty were hired. If you have a legitimate issue, that's fine, but bring it up within that context.

34. Don't hire anymore deans.

35. The same rules for all faculty. Don't tell the humanities faculty that they have to be in the office 5 days a week while the business and criminal justice faculty get to teach their courses and leave. (Yes that happened at my old school.)

36. Dear Provost: on the rare occasion that someone in the media asks you about criticism of the way you treat adjuncts, refrain from answering "our adjunct faculty are not impacted by our not offering benefits as they have full time employment elsewhere" or even anything vague that may create that perception. Be a man. Say anything you want, but don't pull facts out your butt. Not even if the president orders you to. (Just say you forgot.)

37. If I haven't had a raise in nine years, I'm not going to donate part of my pay back to the college, so save the expense of asking me in a letter.

38.  In a multi-campus system, don't insist that all college-wide and committee meetings are held at the main campus.  The excuse that a branch campus is an hour away from the main campus doesn't cut it:  It is an hour in both directions. 

39.  For a university that serves both traditional age undergrads and adult learners, and/or one that serves both undergrads and grad students, don't design all systems and processes to meet the needs of traditional age undergrads. 

40. Have fair and thorough reviews of Deans and upper-level administration. Replace those who are not competent or who are power hungry. Then have open searches with input from all constituents.

41. Reduce the amount of needless assessment, steam-line protocols.

42. Empower faculty to make decisions and have a faculty senate that does something

43. Human Resources should make some effort to understand the jobs that they are setting the pay scale for. Yes, you can get green, untested first tier IT support people for eight dollars an hour. That's not the wage that you pay your experienced network engineer.

Okay, the comments section is open!

(10,136)

Staring Contest Part 2

Given to popularity of the discussion two weeks ago (Staring Contest) on MAP funding, Illinois Student Assistance Commission Executive Director, Andrew Davis, has prepared some facts and data regarding the state of the program. 

It is apparent to me that the MAP program is in distress. However, the question remains: How do we fix it? 

1. Sell $550MM in bonds.

2. Encourage the legislature to fully fund the program.

3. Let it sit as it is.

4. Something else?

Please feel free to discuss. 

What follows are his words. 

Tom

(9855)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP Grant Funding &

Its Impact on College Access

Illinois has a proud tradition of being a leader among the fifty states in providing access to higher education for students of all income levels. The Monetary Award Program (MAP) is the critical program that has provided access for our lower and middle income students. MAP is a need based grant program that was started 50 years ago.  During the past decade, however, our ability to provide sufficient resources to enable students from lower and middle income families to attend college has been seriously challenged. Increased demand for higher education, shrinking state funds and rising college costs have come together to form the “MAP Gap.” The MAP Gap has implications that vary by sector, dependency status, and Illinois region but are uniformly negative.

The first issue is the increasing demand for financial aid. More students are attending college and the cost of doing so has grown faster than family incomes. More students seeking higher education that costs more has lead to double digit growth in demand for financial aid.

•  More people are attending college and most are seeking some type of financial aid.  Students who need financial aid fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA.) The FY2010 total FAFSA application volume was over 750,000 and an 8% increase is expected for FY2011.  Not all of these FAFSA filers are poor; increasingly middle and upper middle income families file FAFSAs to be eligible for Stafford Loans and other aid because they can no longer afford to pay out of pocket the full expense of college.
•  MAP-eligible FAFSA application volume has increased from FY2009 to FY2010 by over 20%.  Since 2000, the number of eligible applications has increased by over 50%. There will be another double digit increase in FY2011. A weak economy and an increasing need for postsecondary training to procure a job combined with the State of Illinois’s Big Goal of 60% college completion, make large increases in future demand for financial aid inevitable.

The critical problem is the failure of state appropriated MAP funding levels to keep up with demand.

• In 2000 the number of MAP grants made was about 136,700. The cost to the state was $326 million.  In 2007, 147,000 awards were made with $383 million.  Since then, although the state appropriation has increased to over $400 million, the number of awards has declined, to about 141,000 in FY2010.  A further small decline is expected this year.  The decline in the number of awards is the result of a shift in awards to students attending four-year schools from students attending two year schools.  Each award to a student attending a four-year school is on average about 3.5 times the size of a community college award.  Students who attend four-year institutions tend to submit the FAFSA earlier than students attending two year schools. So each early applicants from a four year school tends to displace 3.5 later applicants seeking funding to attend a two year school.
• For FY2011 to date, over 125,000 eligible students have had their applications “suspended” because of a lack of funds; nearly 90,000 of them listed a community college as their first choice school on the FAFSA.  In 2009, there were 60,000 suspended students; in 2000, there were none.  From FY2002-FY2008, we suspended award announcements in August; in FY2009, it was July; in FY2010, it was May; and this year, April.  This year it is likely we will suspend more students than we serve.

Not only are more students eligible for MAP grants, they are eligible for larger grants. College tuition and fees have increased dramatically during the decade while funds for MAP have not, causing MAP coverage of tuition and fees to decline.

In Illinois between 1987 and 2010:

• Community college tuition and fees grew from $791 to $2,939 - more than twice as fast as median income.

• Public university tuition and fees grew from $1,710 to $10,442 - four times faster than median income.

• Private school tuition and fees grew from $6,653 to $25,986.

• The maximum MAP grant grew from $3,100 to $4,968.

• In FY2002, the maximum MAP grant covered 100% of the average tuition and fees at a public university; in FY2010 it was 48% and this year it will be less.  The combination of a MAP grant, a Pell Grant and a Stafford loan is no longer sufficient to cover the cost of attendance at a public university for lower income students despite the big increase in Stafford loan limits over the decade. 

• Community college students, who are the most price sensitive, have seen their awards drop from 100% coverage in 2002 to 66% in FY2010.  The average MAP recipient at a community college, the most price-sensitive student with an average income of less than $20,000, has to cover at least $1,000 of tuition and fees, plus books, transportation, computer costs, etc.

Because of the increasing “gaps” in coverage, MAP claim rates for the students from the lowest income families are falling. If students aren’t claiming their awards, they are not attending college.

• Claim rates overall are falling.  FY2010 will be lower than FY2009. The chart at the right shows claim rates by a family’s “expected family contribution” (EFC) – the family’s ability to pay for college.
• For “zero-EFCs”, those students who can contribute nothing to their education, the drop is especially bad – a 4.5% drop since 2002 and they are barely claiming half the dollars they are eligible for – they are taking fewer classes than they need to graduate in a timely fashion.

• For students from families with higher EFCs, claim rates are rising, while the dollars are staying the same.  These students might have gone out of state before (out of state schools are not MAP-eligible.)

The early suspense dates and the drop in claim rates are causing the regional distribution of MAP awards to change.

• The table above shows the special distribution of MAP-eligible students by dependency status (dependent, traditional students and independent students) and region (Chicago, collar counties, rest of the state.)  There is a significant change in the distribution of dependent MAP- eligible students.  The Chicago and collar counties are gaining MAP-eligible students at the expense of downstate due at least in part to a greater emphasis on early FAFSA filing by schools in the Chicago area.  Fewer Chicago area students are being affected by the early suspense date.

• The table above shows MAP recipients by dependency status and region.  Again, there is a significant change in the special distribution of dependent MAP recipients.  Chicago and the collar counties gained MAP recipients while downstate lost recipients.  The drop from 34% to 30% represents about 3,200 students who did not receive MAP downstate.

The early suspense dates and the drop in claim rates is causing the distribution of MAP awards by sector to change.

• Last year, we spent approximately $57 million on 56,326 community college students; this year it will be about $54 million for 52,690 students.  Next year it will be even less.  The early cut-off dates are going to dramatically change the sector divisions.  There will be more dependent students who plan to attend a four-year institution filing early each year.  Each grant takes 3.5 community college grants.
  
  
• The table below shows the change in the distribution of MAP grants and dollars by sector between FY2009 and FY2010.  Community college MAP grants dropped nearly two percent and the dollars going to community colleges fell by about 1 percent.  Barring a dramatic increase in funding, this trend will continue.
  

	Percent of MAP Grants		Percent of MAP Dollars
	2009	2010	2009	2010
Public Universities	29.0%	29.4%	39.1%	39.1%
Community Colleges	38.5%	36.7%	14.8%	13.9%
Private Institutions	26.0%	26.9%	40.2%	40.8%
Proprietary Schools	5.1%	5.6%	5.9%	6.2%

• While the drop in funds to students attending all community colleges is significant; the impact is not the same across all community colleges. Students in rural areas attending community colleges are much less likely today to receive a MAP grant.  Some rural community colleges saw drops of up to 24% in the number of MAP recipients and/or MAP dollars received.
  
  
• Independent students generally file later than dependent students and are often poorer as well.  About one in 4.5 dependent students is suspended due to lack of funds, for independent students it rises to one in three.

The MAP program is under duress.  It is critically important that additional funds be made available to:

• Cover a larger portion of tuition and fees – coverage has dropped from 100% in 2002 to less than half today at public institutions and two-thirds at community colleges.
• Serve more students – especially rural community college students, often independent, who are rapidly being shut out of the process.