HERE WE HAVE IDAHO A State Report Card on Public Higher Education American Council of Trustees and Alumni with the Idaho Freedom Foundation Here We Have Idaho You’ve heard of the wonders our land does possess, Its beautiful valleys and hills, The majestic forest where nature abounds, We love every nook and rill. And here we have Idaho Winning her way to fame. Silver and gold in the sunlight blaze, And romance lies in her name. Singing, we’re singing of you, Ah, proudly too. All our lives thru, We’ll go singing, singing of you, Singing of Idaho. There’s truly one state in this great land of ours, Where ideals can be realized. The pioneers made it so for you and me, A legacy we’ll always prize. Idaho State Song: Written by McKinley Helm and Albert J. Tompkins, Composed by Sallie Hume-Douglas HERE WE HAVE IDAHO A State Report Card on Public Higher Education American Council of Trustees and Alumni with the Idaho Freedom Foundation January 2011 Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the staff of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, primarily by Heather Lakemacher and Eric Markley, in conjunction with the Idaho Freedom Foundation. ACTA thanks the staff members of IFF for their assistance. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is an independent non-profit dedicated to academic freedom, academic excellence, and accountability at America’s colleges and universities. Since its founding in 1995, ACTA has counseled boards, educated the public, and published reports about such issues as good governance, historical literacy, core curricula, the free exchange of ideas, and accreditation. ACTA has previously published At a Crossroads: A Report Card on Public Higher Education in Minnesota, For the People: A Report Card on Public Higher Education in Illinois, Show Me: A Report Card on Public Higher Education in Missouri, Shining the Light: A Report Card on Georgia’s System of Public Higher Education, and Governance in the Public Interest: A Case Study of the University of North Carolina System, among other state-focused reports. The Idaho Freedom Foundation is a non-profit educational and research organization that develops and advocates the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, private property rights, economic freedom, and limited government. The Foundation generates research and data on key issues and recommends the findings to opinion leaders, policymakers, media and the citizens of Idaho. For further information, please contact: American Council of Trustees and Alumni 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 802 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202.467.6787 Fax: 202.467.6784 www.goacta.org • [email protected] Idaho Freedom Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 2801 Boise, ID 83701 Phone: 208.467.9257 Fax: 208.965.8111 www.idahofreedom.net • [email protected] Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 3 CHAPTER I GENERAL EDUCATION 7 CHAPTER II INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY 13 CHAPTER III GOVERNANCE BOARD STRUCTURE AND TRANSPARENCY OF OPERATIONS BOARD ACCOMPLISHMENTS 27 CHAPTER IV COST AND EFFECTIVENESS 38 APPENDIX A SELECTION CRITERIA FOR CORE COURSES 39 APPENDIX B STUDENT SURVEY METHODOLOGY HERE WE HAVE IDAHO A STATE REPORT CARD ON PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION HERE WE HAVE IDAHO A STATE REPORT CARD ON PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION Introduction THE STATE SONG “HERE WE HAVE IDAHO” GETS IT RIGHT. Proclaiming the joys and benefits of the Gem State, it depicts a state where “ideals can be realized” and where citizens will have a legacy to prize. Surely, a strong educational system is central to realizing those ideals, and it is with that goal in mind that ACTA offers this report, the sixth in a series of report cards on state higher education systems around the country. This report examines Idaho’s undergraduate-degree-granting colleges and universities. We focus on what students are learning (the curriculum), whether the marketplace of ideas is vibrant (intellectual diversity), how the universities are run (governance), and what a college education costs (affordability). In each case, we evaluate Idaho institutions in light of issues, studies, and national best practices, awarding a Passing or Failing grade. Are students learning the things they need to know? Is there a healthy exchange of ideas? Are trustees upholding the public trust? Are taxpayers getting good value for their money? These are the kinds of questions to which the people of Idaho deserve answers. It is the goal of this report card to provide answers and to help Idaho’s leaders—including the governor, the state legislature, and the trustees—find the way forward at this challenging time. Our hope is to help Idaho become a national standard bearer for excellence, accountability, and efficiency in higher education. The first section focuses on general education—those courses, usually completed within the first two years of a bachelor’s degree program, that ensure a broad education and college-level skills critical to workforce participation. We found that Idaho’s institutions of higher education neglect many foundational subjects. Some campuses require crucial subjects such as mathematics, English composition, literature, natural science, and foreign language, but others do not; and none of Idaho’s institutions requires a foundational class in economics or U.S. government or history. In the second section, we focus on intellectual diversity, a value that lies at the very heart of the educational enterprise. In the simplest terms, intellectual diversity means the free exchange of ideas. According to a scientific survey of students we commissioned, it is in trouble in Idaho. Students report violations of professional standards—including perceived pressure to agree with 1 2011 | AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI HHEERREE WWEE HHAAVVEE IIDDAAHHOO AA SSTTAATTEE RREEPPOORRTT CCAARRDD OONN PPUUBBLLIICC HHIIGGHHEERR EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN professors’ views in order to get a good grade—and exhibit a lack of awareness of their rights and how to ensure those rights are respected. Many institutions across the country have taken responsible action in recent years to guarantee intellectual pluralism. Idaho’s institutions should join them. The third section turns to governance and actions by the Idaho State Board of Education. Board members are responsible for the academic and financial well-being of the state’s institutions and for safeguarding the public interest. Our examination of board minutes and other publicly available materials suggests that, generally, the board has done a satisfactory job of following best practices in governance structure. The board meets regularly, discusses substantive issues, and has formulated long-term plans. However, there is room for improvement in their handling of such practical matters as the presidential hiring process, general education, intellectual diversity, and cost—and we hope the board will take action. Finally, we take a look at cost and effectiveness. This is an area of real concern. On average, increases in tuition and fees at the institutions we assessed outstripped inflation by nearly 20 percent between 2004 and 2009—and too much of that increase is going to administrative costs, instead of instruction. Measures of effectiveness reveal an alarming picture and the need for greater focus on educational quality: Three of Idaho’s institutions posted a six-year graduation rate of 30 percent or lower, well below the national average. One in three students is dropping out after just one year of college. Idahoans depend on their universities to ensure students have a functional knowledge of core subjects. They depend on these universities to be places where ideas and opinions are expressed freely and explored with academic integrity. And they depend on the Board of Education to govern prudently and to use resources wisely so that, in the words of the state song, “ideals can be realized” and Idahoans can be ensured a legacy of informed citizenship and lifelong learning. Our hope is that Idaho’s leaders—including the governor, the state legislature, and board—will use this report card toward those important ends. Anne D. Neal President American Council of Trustees and Alumni 2 HHEERREE WWEE HHAAVVEE IIDDAAHHOO AA SSTTAATTEE RREEPPOORRTT CCAARRDD OONN PPUUBBLLIICC HHIIGGHHEERR EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN CHAPTER I: Overall GENERAL EDUCATION Grade Institutions have solid general education requirements in some core subjects. However, large numbers of F Idaho students can graduate without a strong base of knowledge in Literature, U.S. Government or History, and Economics. “GENERAL EDUCATION” OR THE “CORE CURRICULUM” refers to required undergraduate courses outside the student’s specialization or major. Traditionally, these courses have been subject to two limits. First, they are relatively few in number, and, second, they are general in scope. These courses— usually completed within the first two years of a bachelor’s degree program and typically comprising about a third of the total number of undergraduate credit hours—are supposed to ensure a common intellectual background, exposure to a wide range of disciplines, a core of fundamental knowledge, and college-level skills in areas critical to good citizenship, workforce participation, and lifelong learning. To assess the state of general education in Idaho, we looked at all four of Idaho’s public four-year institutions: Boise State University, Idaho State University, Lewis-Clark State College, and the University of Idaho. Using the most recent online course catalogs for the university, we examined whether these institutions require their students to take general education courses in seven key subjects: Composition, Literature, Foreign Language, U.S. Government or History, Economics, Mathematics, and Natural or Physical Science. Of course, arguments can be made for requiring any number of additional topics, but a core curriculum that fails to require most of these seven key subjects will not satisfy the basic demands of general education. Simply having requirements called Literature or Mathematics does not in fact mean that students will study those subjects in a manner appropriate for general education purposes. Many colleges give the appearance of providing a core curriculum because they require students to take courses in several subject areas other than their major—often called “distribution requirements.” However, within each subject area, it is not uncommon for students to have dozens or even hundreds of courses from which to choose—many of them 3 2011 | AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI HHEERREE WWEE HHAAVVEE IIDDAAHHOO AA SSTTAATTEE RREEPPOORRTT CCAARRDD OONN PPUUBBLLIICC HHIIGGHHEERR EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN on narrow or trendy subject matters. Therefore, to be counted in this report, a course must be a true general education course—broad in scope, exposing the student to the rich array of material that exemplifies the subject. Furthermore, if a course that qualifies for credit were one of several options that also included courses that do not meet the specifications for general education credit, the institution did not receive credit for the subject. For further details on the criteria used, please see Appendix A. After researching the institutions, we assigned a Passing (P) or Failing (F) grade for each subject. Every Idaho graduate should ideally be exposed to all of the broad areas outlined above; however, if a majority of the institutions surveyed (three or more) required the subject, a grade of P was awarded to the state. If two or fewer of the institutions surveyed required the subject, a grade of F was assigned. On the whole, the state of Idaho earned an F, and only one out of the four schools surveyed required a majority of the seven core subjects. GENERAL EDUCATION F Composition F Literature F Language F U.S. Government or History F Economics F Mathematics P Natural or Physical Science OVERALL GRADE: F Commendably, three of the four institutions received credit for Science. However, at least two of the four did not receive credit in Composition, Literature, Foreign Language, and Mathematics, and not a single one received credit for U.S. Government or History or for Economics. While it is possible for students to study these subjects, exemptions, as well as the number and variety of courses that satisfy existing distribution requirements make it easy for students to graduate with large gaps in their knowledge. The only institution surveyed that required a majority of the seven subjects was LCSC. It requires solid coursework in Composition, Literature, Mathematics, and Natural or Physical Science. However, it failed to require 4