POINT . . .

. . . COUNTERPOINT

Saving Programs in Higher Education

We Need to Handle It Ourselves by Regina B. Glover The 1990s are proving to be a decade of unprecedented change for higher education. In 1991-92 nearly 60% of all colleges and universities experienced cuts in operating budgets. Couple this with the recent demise of a few recreation departments across the country, and it is not surprising that recreation practitioners are wondering what they can do to "save" these programs in colleges and universities. The answer is "very little." The solution to saving a recreation program is to be found on each campus, not "in the field" with alumni or professional association support. The reasons for this are many. Decisions to Eliminate Are Internal First, look at where the decision to eliminate a program or major is made. It is made on each campus by administrators, often several layers removed from the academic department in question. Gone are the days when programs, recreation or otherwise, had institutional security due to the history or personalities involved. Off-Campus Solutions Are Only Temporary Second, each college or university which houses a recreation program is unique. To look off-campus for a solution to saving an academic program is illogical and temporary at best. For example, what happened to the recreation program at the University of Maryland, or what will happen to the program at the University of Illinois makes little difference to the existence of a recreation program at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. Each school defines its own mission and reward system. To survive at Southern Illinois University, we recognize that our university evaluates programs based on four criteria: 1. undergraduate enrollment numbers; 2. per credit hour costs, 3. placement of graduates in their field of study; and 4. "centrality" (the degree to which courses offered are required of students majoring in other fields). Even if another school, such as Illinois State University, were to use the same four criteria the outcome might not be the same. There are too many other variables involved. For example, what are the other majors on campus, where is the decision made at the school, how is the department presently configured?

We Need Your Help by Sandra Little Recently, highly regarded recreation/park/leisure studies curricula have been targeted for elimination, reduction, restructuring, or relocation in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, California, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, and Massachusetts. Is there anything the profession can do to insure that professional preparation and leisure studies programs are available for future generations? The answer is "yes," particularly as professionals serve as (a) alumni of institutions, (b) employers of students, (c) advocates of regional and statewide societal needs and (d) lobbyists to the legislature either individually or collectively. Decisions Are Shifting from Institutions to the Political Arena Recent actions of the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) in the Fall of 1992 demonstrate that decisions about a program's future can be rendered outside the institution and its governing board. Higher education is in a political arena which finds "relevance" increasingly defined by elected officials, their appointees, and staff. Illinois Issues (May 1992) quotes IBHE Chairman Quern as saying that IBHE plans to take a more aggressive role with regard to programs at public universities. Missions of Universities Defined by Political Appointees Rather Than Institutions Recently, the IBHE redefined the mission statements of public higher education institutions without the input of the institutions. These revised mission statements reflected the IBHE decision to limit the scope of some institutions serving only central Illinois. Further, it was decided which institutions would have particular programs, regardless of their established relevancy within their institution or region. For example, it was determined that Northern Illinois should not have a school of law, as there were other schools of law in the state. It was decided that four departments of agriculture were too many, three would be enough. These redefinitions have met with vocal concern from students and an outpouring of alumni and legislator support in the hope that political pressure will prevail. Decisions to Terminate Programs Are Complex Decisions are not totally based on dollars and cents. In one case, a targeted department brought in more dollars through grants, sales, and contracts than it received from state funding. The loss of that department would have had a negative income effect on the institution. Even within universities, decisions to eliminate pro-

Illinois Parks and Recreation

28

November/December 1992

We Must Handle This Ourselves (continued) Recreation is Not a Fundamental Offering Third, recreation is not a fundamental offering in higher education. It is not in that inner circle of disciplines, such as math, science, or history, which are considered critical for a degree. Only the critical majors will survive on tradition. Our survival is based on ''service marketability" and that will never change. If the number of majors in math goes down, that department will survive. If the number of majors in recreation drops, recreation programs become all the more vulnerable. Recreation Departments Have an Identity Crisis Fourth, recreation departments are once again having an identity crisis. Historically, this occurred with those outside the field not knowing exactly what we did. Now, however, the identity crisis is internal. We can't decide what we do. As time, income, and leisure have increased, so too has the range of components possible for a recreation program. We talk of commercial recreation, travel and tourism, clinical versus non-clinical therapeutic recreation, expedition leadership, and more. No one department can do it all. So, not only are departments on different campuses trying to decide what they do best, they are trying to see how they best fit on their own campuses. Totally new alliances are being formed between disciplines. Recreation may belong with hospitality on one campus, and with rehabilitation on another. Decisions to Eliminate Programs Are Being Made for Fiscal Reasons Finally, fiscal concerns are the main reason these decisions are made. Public colleges are feeling the financial squeeze even more than private colleges. The 1990s are finding colleges increasing tuition, freezing faculty hiring, offering fewer courses, reducing services, eliminating majors, and re-evaluating the role of higher education. As the dollars continue to talk, administrators often must make quick decisions. For recreation departments to turn off campus for help is a mistake. Rarely does time exist to marshal resources effectively. Recreation departments can, and will, survive the '90s. But to do so, they must become politically aware of the happenings on their own campuses. It is there that they must be "visible" and able to demonstrate "value." About the Author Regina Glover is associate professor of recreation at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.

We Need Your Help (continued) grams are not always based on dollars. There is an example of eliminating one major, even though there were minimal faculty savings, because primary assignments were serving other majors, minors, or general service courses. The rationale that elimination is based on economics can serve as a diversionary tactic to take the pressure off areas more valued by administrators or political appointees. When this occurs it is important for professionals to be involved in support activities, such as letter writing. It is important that universities and colleges set up systems of support (including mailing lists) in advance of potential elimination decisions. The University of Missouri on two separate occasions has had the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism removed from the elimination list because of its allies within agencies and key individuals outside the institution. Identity Crisis At State And Institutional Levels The IBHE has identified recreation, park and leisure studies curricula under the rubric "recreation and fitness." It does not recognize the distinction between these areas. Of particular concern is linking employment opportunities for fitness, which is highly specialized and limited, to the overall enjoyment in recreation. Linking recreation and fitness increases the number of programs in the state. Most fitness majors exist in separate programs under physical education. Recreation curricula could be targeted because of a perceived proliferation of programs. To change that designation is going to require changes in perception by those outside of the institutions. Professionals could provide information for educating organizations such as IBHE about recreation's relationship with fitness, while focusing on the broader scope of employment within the recreation and parks field. Recreation is Fundamental to the Social and Economic Needs of the State Universities may not consider recreation fundamental to their mission when the financial situation gets rough. The case for recreation as being fundamental can be made at the state level based on its contribution to life-quality, economics (tourism, for example), and environmental (conservation) stewardship issues. Association professionals are in a good position politically to reinforce the fundamental importance and benefits of recreation and parks. If the ground work has been laid with those who control the purse strings, it will make it more difficult for programs to be eliminated at the whim of institutional administrators. Recreation, park and leisure study programs/departments can, and will, survive the 90s only to the degree to which they are relevant to the political systems in the state. Because "politic" means "of the people," it will be important for those who make the decisions through the election process to be informed by professionals and citizens supporting recreation and parks in Illinois concerning the necessity and benefits that our discipline offers. About the Author Sandra Little, associate professor of recreation and parks at Illinois State University, agreed to play devil's advocate for this point-countor-point article.

Illinois Parks and Recreation

29

November/December 1992