Defining and Analyzing the Issues
Diagnostic Questions
Compiling the Basic Data
Data Analyses
Creating a Policy Environment for Change
Formulating a Public Agenda
The Higher Education Policy Environment
The Capacity Audit
The Policy Audit
Policy Formulation
Alignment of Policy Tools: Two Examples
No Single Answer
Appendix: Examples of the Presentation of State Data
About the Authors
About the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

home   about us   news   reports   crosstalk   search   links  

Page 14 of 17

No Single Answer

The second major piece of guidance reflects the reality that there are multiple paths for achieving state priorities for higher education performance. Even when consensus is formed around a public agenda for higher education, individuals of right purpose and informed intellect can arrive at different conclusions about how to go about reaching agreed-upon ends. A classic example is the debate over improving access: should a state work to keep tuition low or favor a strategy of high tuition accompanied by sufficient levels of student aid? And there are other illustrations:

  • Using incentive funding versus program funding to ensure delivery of instruction to geographically isolated students.
  • Improving articulation versus encouraging enrollment in four-year institutions as a strategy for improving success rates of students normally considered "at risk."
  • Emphasizing dual enrollment versus Advanced Placement as a vehicle for preparing students for successful college participation.

The list could be expanded almost indefinitely, but the important point is that there are always options in the ways that problems are attacked. Some alternatives may work out better than others-not because the solutions are inherently superior, but because they fit the circumstances better.

The encouraging observation is that if agreement can be reached on the overall objectives, there is usually room for political compromise in determining the specific tools to be employed. In the absence of agreement on the larger agenda, battle lines harden around the tools to be employed and the emphasis gets displaced from achieving something to doing something. The two-fold cause of innumerable failures of well-intentioned initiatives has consisted of:

  • displacing attention from ends to means, and
  • falling back on a single policy tool instead of maintaining an integrated strategy that employs multiple tools.

A related culprit has been the propensity to borrow solutions from states with similar problems but different circumstances (the "one-size-fits-all" approach).

To be successful at improving opportunity for higher education, it is important that:

  • The problem be well understood and specified.
  • A policy agenda with clear objectives be established.
  • The size and nature of mismatches between need and existing capacity be explored.
  • The circumstances that govern the array of potential solutions be well understood.
  • The existing policies that represent barriers be identified.
  • A strategy comprised of multiple components be devised.
  • The agenda be pursued persistently and policies be aligned consistently.

With this recipe, progress can be made. Unfortunately, the results will not appear as rapidly as most policymakers might expect, or would desire.



National Center logo
© 2000 The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

HOME | about us | center news | reports & papers | national crosstalk | search | links | contact

site managed by NETView Communications