Issues confronting higher education in Georgia [Sept. 1968]

ISSUES
CONFRONTI NG HIGHER EDUCATION
IN GEORGIA 1968
The Educational Research and Planning Group

A HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES COMMISSION
Dr. Harmon W. Caldwell, Chairman John D. Comer James A. Dunlap Dr. Rufus C. Harris Dr. WaightsG. Henry, Jr. Dr. Benjamin Mays
Wheeler Bryan, Legal Counsel William N. Perry, Treasurer William E. Hudson, Executive Secretary Parks A. Dodd, Jr., Associate Executive Secretary
THE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING GROUP Consultants to the Commission
Cooper, Carry and Associates AlA - Architects Eric Hill Associates - Urban Planning Consultants The Research Group - Government Research Consultants
836 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia

ISSUES CONFRONTING HIGHER EDUCATION IN GEORGIA
The Educational Research and Planning Group consisting of:
Cooper, Carry and Associates, AlA - ,Architects Eric Hill Associates - Urban Planni ng Consultants The Research Group - Government Research Consultants
Atlanta, Georgia
September, 1968

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

The Need to Plan

1

Elements of the Plan

3

Geographic Distribution of Buildings and Campuses

4

Private Institutions

6

Negroes in Higher Education

8

Research on Higher Education Needs

9

The Implementation of Planning

10

FOREWORD
This statement describes some of the key issues confronting higher education in Georgia over the next ten years. The conclusions expressed grow out of the experience derived from the first year of planning by the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission. This experience is embodied in a number of reports, studies and memoranda wh ich were produced for the Comm iss ion by The Educational Research and Planning Group, the titles of which are as follows:
Georgia Higher Education Facilities Inventory and Enrollment Trends in 1967 A Summary Report Summary of 1967 Georgia Higher Education Building and Instructional Space Inventories by Individual Institutions Description of Enrollment Projection Methodologies (Technical Memorandum No. 1, included with the Summary Report) Summary Description of 1967 Georgia Higher Education Facilities Inventory and Associated Data Processing Activities (Technical Memorandum No.2) Proposed 1968 Georgia Higher Education Facilities Inventory Updating System (Technical Memorandum No.3)
The conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of The Educational Research and Planning
Group, which hopes that they will serve to guide the decisions and future research of the Commission
into fruitful directions.
THE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANN ING GROUP

ISSUES CONFRONTING HIGHER EDUCATION IN GEORGIA
The doubling of higher education enrollments in the last seven years created unprecedented demands for new facilities and campuses. In addition, the lack of significant construction during two decades of depression and war required that a considerable "catch up" effort also had to be launched simply to replace worn out pre-1930 buildings. These two conditions more students and a backlog of projects - combined to force a massive construction effort on Georg ia campuses throughout the 196O's.
Enrollments, furthermore, continue to accelerate. More students were added in the two years, 1966 and 1967, than were added during the entire 1950-1960 decade. That the higher education institutions of the state were able to absorb this growth without be ing crushed by it, or without diluting the quality of the education itself, is perhaps more meaningful than the indices of growth. These institutions not only met the challenge of numbers of the 1960's, but also and at the same time, caught up with deferred improvements and yet retained the standards of excellence in the colleges.
Looking back and realizing today what then lay ahead, it may be asked, What decisions might have been made in 1960, which might have led these institutions to a more orderly, efficient and balanced system of education? If, at the beginning of the 1960 decade, the institutions had had the knowledge of what was to occur, what steps would they have taken which would have been different? Would more junior colleges have been built, or fewer? Would the new institutions have been placed where they were placed, or somewhere else? Would the same kinds of buildings have been built? Could greater utilization of the existing structures have been made? Where would the curriculum emphasis have been altered? Given the knowledge that millions of dollars were about to be spent on the construction of campus facilities, what different actions would have been taken regarding the allocation of these funds?
The Need to Plan These questions have current importance. They are being raised now because the situation today closely resembles that of the early 1960s. The institutions of this state, once again, are

LEGEND Institutions in existence in 1950 Institutions Established since 1950
<
\
MAP ONE
INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED SINCE 1950

confronted by the prospect that massive numbers of students will be seeking a college education, and that over the next ten years, enrollments will probably again double.
The initial issue now facing Georgia institutions, therefore, is what will be done to meet this future demand - this demand which is expected to add another 75,000 to 100,000 students by 1977 (as compared with 50,000 additional students during the 1960's). The response during the early 1960's was to construct new buildings as quickly as possible. The results have given Georgia an educational complex where almost half of the space is relatively new, and where Iittle of the remain ing space is in poor condition. In the face of another decade of growth, should Georgia institutions simply confine themselves to overseeing a massive construction program? Is the publ ic prepared to underwrite such a program for yet another decade? Given the current mood of the public towards higher taxation and continual expenditures, it would appear that the rising demands requ ire a carefu I coordination of the tax resources based upon clearly articu lated objectives and priorities.
Elements of the Plan As the institutions in Georgia enter this second phase of growth, they find themselves with a sound physical plant. Unlike the early 1960's, this will be no "catch up" period. The schools, therefore, will be free to plan primarily for the anticipated demands. As such, the next ten years will permit a more sophisticated analysis of the character of the demand. If the initial issue, then, is whether the institutions will systematically confront the expected enrollment increases in a coordinated, comprehensive, continuous approach, the second questions must be, What are the elements which should guide the formulation of a plan for action? and Towards what issues should educational policy be directed? Dealing with an increase of this magnitude will be arduous enough; doing so, and, at the same time, meeting the goals of a changing educational system and society will require considerable skill and imagination. It will also require a set of objectives wh ich all institutions would agree were worthy, sound and attainable.
Several trends and changing conditions were noted throughout the Summary Report issued by the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission. They form the basis for the issues which, more
-3-

and more, confront higher education in Georgia. They also require firm direction from policy boards if the quality of education is to be maintained while the growth demands are met. These involve special attention to (1) the geographic location of future buildings and campuses, (2) the role of the private institution in the educational system, (3) the Negro in the education system, and (4) the need for more and better data on which decisions can be made.

1.

Geographic distribution of buildings and campuses. The question of where future facilities

should be placed is related to a number of other questions, as well as to all of the other

major issues disclosed below. If the projected enrollments are going to be absorbed as

the institutions themselves expect, the junior colleges will play an increasingly greater

role in the next ten years.

Georgia has moved vigorously to establish a system of community colleges. It thereby is meeting one of the most emphasized goals recommended by the Commission on Goals for Higher Education in the South. The committee suggested, in 1961, that "Each state should develop a strong system of two-year community colleges. "* These colleges, the committee stated, should be an .integral part of the state system, should resist the pressure to expand into four-year institutions, and should serve functions distinctive from high schools and from the traditional four-year univarsity.

The locations of future colleges need to be related to a set of objectives, some educational, some not directly educational. The analyses of demographic and economic trends (discussed in Part Four of the Summary Report) and of the availability of campuses in various sections of the state (as shown in Tables 13 and 14 of that report) should be helpful in determining where such institutions should be placed, how large they should become, and suggest that community characteristics of these areas shou Id be reflected.

The location of junior college facilities must also relate to the future role of the four-year university. Decisions must be made as to whether the four-year universities will remain in their traditional form, educating students at all levels and with a variety of abilities

*Within Our Reach, Commission on Goals for Higher Education in the South, published by the Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Georgia, 1961, p. 16.
-4-

\ 1- __

~ HURD

\
- \ ,,-

\.......

TROUP

i,
\
\

--- ......--

LEGEND Public
Private 50 mile radius

JEJo!C1NS
/

I
!
..... ->--..
/aULLOCH /,
[.HDL.~l
iI
-~~-L -....
\ nAtls........

..... /'
- -...("EFFlt\GH...
1
\ ... \
....- . .-,

\

\. ........... "TAH

'"r
- , r DECATUR

~R...O'

!
(
J
1" -'- ._---_...L _

MAP TWO
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TWO YEAR INSTITUTIONS

in most subjects; or whether these institutions will begin to admit students in upper classes only, specializing in specific curriculum, and only superior students.

These questions, along with many others, need to be posed now if Georgia institutions are to guide the 100,000-student growth into an orderly arrangement. They cannot be answered by each institution operating independently, nor by only publ ic bodies, nor by the largest institutions. They must involve the concern and participation of all institutions, within a well-defined framework of standards and principles.

2.

Private institutions. Related to the previous question is the role of the private colleges

in today IS education. Increasingl~ private colleges are playing a much less important

role in absorbing the increasing enrollments. In 1950, one-third of all students were

on private campuses; by 1977, only one-fifth are expected to be at these institutions.

OPENING FALL ENROLLMENTS, BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION, IN GEORGIA, 1967, WITH

PROJECTIONS BY THE INSTITUTIONS FOR 1972 AND 1977

(total enrollment)

Open ing Fa II Enrollments

Increase in Enrollment

1967

1972

1977

1967-72 1967-77

Two-year Institutions Publ ic Private Subtotal
Four-year Institutions Public Private Subtotal TOTAL

13,264 3,347
(16,611)

23,904 5,467
(29,371)

37,772 6,625
(44,397)

63,401 21,346
(84,747)
101,358

93,384 28,045
(121,429)
150,800

124,128 35,503
(159,631 }
204,028

10,640 2,120
(12,760)

24,508 3,278
(27,786)

29,983 6,699
(36,682)
49,442

60,727 14,157
(74,884)
102,670

Source: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Opening Fall Enrollments, 1967, and Higher Education General Information Survey, 1967.

-6-

The private institutions have helped to achieve the high level of education exceiience in Georgia. That they will be able to educate a lesser proportion of the enrollments in the future will not diminish that importance. It should be recognized that they will still be educating, in 1977, some 43,000 students, an increase from their present enrollments of 24,700 men and women.
More important, however, is the kind of education they will continue to provide. Private institutions offer a special ized environment unique to both undergraduates and advanced degree education. They absorb a disproportionately large share of graduate students. They attract a large percentage of out-of-state students. They offer certain courses which are not normally available elsewhere - the theology and dental schools at Emory, and the Southern School of Pharmacy under Mercer's supervision, are examples .
. It is vital to the interests of higher education in Georg ia that these special qualities of private institutions, including their ability to absorb a sizable portion of the total enrollment, be maintained. In light of the financial stress in which many of these schools find themselves, their ability to achieve these goals will be sorely tested. This is due to the limited sources from which funds are available, and from the competition for these funds.
Emory, in perhaps as sound a financial situation as any of the state's private institutions, is itse If pressed. Its president recently stated:
Emory's situation is approximately the same as that of many others - there just isn't enough money to do the things one would like. There are programs we would like to have, and there are facilities that need to be built, but the money is not yet available for them. Emory is not being operated overall at a deficit, but we certainly push our resources to the limit. *
To avoid the circumstances where all institutions would be state controlled, he went on to suggest that the American people must decide that private higher education is important, then allocate enough of its ph i lanthropic funds to support it. Emory, he stated, may even consider someday receiving more funds than it does from public taxes sources.
*Interview with President Sanford Atwood, The Emory Magazine, May-June, 1968, p.6.
-7-

The preservation of the private institution becomes a key factor in planning for future facilities in Georgia. Decisions affecting the ability of these schools to grow, to absorb more of the enrollment increases, and to maintain their unique education qualities are required in order to assure a continued high level of excellence for all students over the next ten years.

3.

Negroes in Higher Education. Most Negro college students in Georgia are enrolled in

institutions which are predominantly Negro. There are ten such institutions, three

which are public and seven which are private. Three offer graduate programs. All are

accredited, giving Georgia the second largest number of such institutions among the 15

southern and border states.

An increasingly larger proportion of Negro students will be among the lOO,OOO-students growth expected by 1977. More and more, these Negroes will bring with their demands for wider program offerings and bet,ter facilities. Whether the traditional Negro institutions will be able to absorb more than a normal portion of these students, whether they can modernize their plants and upgrade their programs, particularly at the graduate level, are decisions which must be faced by all institutions. With so many of the traditionally Negro colleges being private, the normal difficulty of finding funds for these purposes carries over into the education requirements of the Negro, only the sources are much fewer and many of the campuses are in much greater need of repair.

This concern was the basis for a recent statement by the Commission on Higher Educational Opportunity in the South. * Their goal was to seek ways to "provide equal higher educational opportunity for Negroes in the South." To realize this goal swiftly, they identified the need for commitment to three essential measures: 1) to help Negro college students overcome the handicaps of educational disadvantage and cultural deprivation, 2) to establish a single system of higher education which would serve all students, and 3) to involve all educational resources to achieve equality of educational opportunity.

*The Negro and Higher Education in the South, Commission on Higher Educational Opportunity in the South, published by the Southern Regional Educational Board, August, 1967.

-8-

The establishment of a ten-year plan for absorbing twice the current number of students, must take careful note of the Negro student. As an increasing part of this growth, neither he nor the institutions which traditionally train him are, for the most part, fully prepared for the task. Specia I measures will have to be adopted, both at the underg raduate and graduate levels, eliminate overlapping and duplication brought on by dual education systems. Only in this way will Georgia be assured that all colleges are equipped for the special kind of programs needed to meet the goals which the Commission has establ ished.

4.

Research on Higher Education Needs. A fourth element involved in the planning for

long-term growth has to do with the type of research which this study represents. This

year's research effort is the first attempt to inventory all facilities, and the first view

of the long-range demands which are anticipated on both public and private campuses

for Georg ia. If the expected increases in enrollments are to be accommodated in an

orderly manner, a continuous, comprehensive research program, characterized by

imaginative planning, will have to be undertaken.

Some of the data needs have been indicated in the reports already issued. Foremost among these is a better understanding of the relationsh ips between the students and the types of facilities they use. Available information did not reveal, for example, the kind and number of students who used the buildings inventoried.

There needs to be an annual updating of the inventory and student characteristics data. As part of this study, the techniques for keeping the data current have been recommended. Data on students shou Id also be annually updated, placed on tape or cards, and stored. This will, over a period of years, permit trends to be charted and projections of facilities made.
There are these and other issues for which policies need to be drawn: the role of higher education institutions in adult education, the increasing demands for graduate and professional training, the establishment of standards for judging the utilization of space, and the need to articulate noneducational goals which colleges should also seek to achieve.

-9-

The Implementation of Planning To summarize, the foregoing discussion was primarily concerned with two important questions:

1

Given the almost staggering future demands for education confronting institutions of

higher education, can actions be taken now wh ich wou Id help channel th is growth

toward an improved and satisfactory educational system?

2.

If it is agreed that a more systematic approach could achieve the overall educational

quality which all desire, then what are some of the elements and issues which are in-

volved in such a plan?

These questions lead to a th ird and final point of immediate importance. What shou Id be the organizational framework for carrying out the long-range systematic planning efforts? Without a device for carrying on research, analyzing the changing conditions, establ ish ing objectives and standards, and making recommendations, the full educational opportunities will be missed. Georgia institutions will thereby retrace the course they chose in 1960, which responded admirably to the educational demands, but largely on an uncoordinated individual basis.

This is essentially a question of responsibility for action. There is presently no single body which has this responsibility. The Board of Regents speaks only for the public institutions. The Georgia' Higher Education Facilities Commission, while representing all institutions, is new and, so far, without the staff and resources to initiate action and set policy.

An organization of this scope was recommended, in 1961, by the Commission on Goals for Higher Education in the South, which stated: IIEvery Southern state shou Id have a central agency for long, range planning and coordination of higher eduation. 11* Such an agency, the report stated,should 1) be given a clear statement of its mission and responsibility, 2) be given authority to carry out its responsibil ities, 3) have sufficient staff and funds to conduct research projects, and 4) deal with educational programs and objectives, as well as have other responsibil ities.

*With in Our Reach, op. cit., p. 41 .

-10-

If the public investment that must be made for higher education faci Iities in the next decade is to be wisely expended, certain standards need to be imposed within an analytical framework designed to achieve agreed-upon objectives. These objectives need to be specifically established and periodically reviewed and perhaps changed. .An organizational structure needs to be set upi the opportunities are too great to do otherwise 0 This, in fact, is the key issue facing the institutions of higher education in Georgia today.
-11-