The document outlines an agenda for a June 11, 2012 meeting. The agenda items include welcome/introductions, presentations on economic trends and the board of governor's strategic plan, discussions on the higher education coordinating council and framing issues/process review, and a period for public comment. It also includes a recess in the schedule.

1. AGENDA
June 11, 2012
I. Welcome/Introductions/Minutes 12:30 p.m. – 12:45 p.m. D. Brill
II. Economic & Demographic Trends 12:45 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. A. Baker
III. Board of Governor’s Strategic Plan 1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. F. Brogan
IV. Brief Recess 2:45 p.m. – 3 p.m.
V. Higher Education Coordinating Council 3 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. F. Brogan
VI. Framing Issues & Process Review 3:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. D. Brill
VI. Discussion & Public Comment 4 p.m. – 5 p.m.

2. Process Map
May 4 June 11 June 25 July 26 Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Oct. 30
Organize
Review & Input Collection
Solution Development
Refinement
Edit/Delivery

3. Framing the Issues
• Questions often influence answers.
• Pursuit of solutions creates oversimplification.
• Example: Five narratives of tuition inflation.
Source: Mumper, Michael and Melissa L. Freeman (2011) “The Continuing
Paradox of Public College Tuition Inflation,” pgs. 37-60 in The States
and Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Acces and
Accountability, Second Edition, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

4. Tuition Inflation Narrative One
State Governments Make Prices Rise
The decline in state support forces administrators and boards to raise tuition.
ASSUMPTIONS:
• Only two major revenue sources: Tuition and State Appropriations
• Institutional expenditures are fixed.
CONSEQUENCES:
• Campus leaders reacting to forces beyond their control.
• Governors/Legislators are villains.
• Since cyclical changes in economy reduce revenues, none of the participants have to
accept responsibility—little reason to change status quo.
• Lobbying efforts increase.

5. Tuition Inflation Narrative Two
Rising costs of competing public goods make prices rise.
Increased demands from other budget items crowds out university funding.
ASSUMPTIONS:
• Budget situation results from choices made by Governors/Legislators and public.
• Higher Education increasingly seen as private good vs. public good.
CONSEQUENCES:
• Cuts to Higher Education positioned as different than cutting funds to Medicaid,
Criminal Justice and Infrastructure.
• Governors/Legislators and public are villains.
• Expectation that donors and students pick up greater share/burden.
• Feeds to “Narrative One.”

6. Tuition Inflation Narrative Three
Quality programs cost money.
Tuition increases caused by changes in spending drivers.
ASSUMPTIONS:
• Certain expenditures required to provide a high-quality education.
• Certain expenditures required to compete for best students/faculty.
CONSEQUENCES:
• College becomes a lifestyle, not just an education—costs driven by ever
increasing student expectations.
• Policies to control costs are based on misunderstanding of the problem of
costs.
• Universities face choice: Keep up (with the Joneses) or fall behind.

7. Tuition Inflation Narrative Four
Lack of control/accountability increase tuition.
University leadership fails to reign in spending patterns.
ASSUMPTIONS:
• Leaders failing to make choices about where to spend limited funds.
• Universities must live within their means.
• Increasingly held view that universities don’t spend their money in appropriate ways.
CONSEQUENCES:
• Lingering disagreement over the priorities of public Higher Education.
– Campus Leaders/Faculty: Research and Rankings vs. Teaching/Workforce Prep
• Pressure to improve efficiencies or increase productivity.
• If campus leaders will not make tough decisions, funding cuts will force them to do so.

8. Tuition Inflation Narrative Five
What’s the problem?
Increased enrollment in spite of increased tuition suggests prices not too
high.
ASSUMPTION:
• Problem isn’t that the poor pay too much, but that the rich pay too little.
CONSEQUENCES:
• College price increases seen as a concern only when they begin to stop
students from entering public colleges.
• Redirecting some students who would otherwise want to attend flagship
universities to alternatives seen as a reasonable trade off.

9. Conclusions
1. Our work is wrought with paradox and complexities.
2. What we assume about the problem will influence the
solutions we develop.
3. Attempting to prove which of the five narratives is
“correct” is counter-productive.
4. We must break from the temptation to make the case
for solutions driven by assumptions and direct our
attention to examining the intended and unintended
consequences of the incentives put in place to deliver
the ultimate outcomes desired.