This spring finds Auburn University in an all too familiar situation. We are in the middle of a legislative session in which our chances of any significant increase in funding are meager. Admittedly, things are not as dismal as they have been for th e past two years. We do not expect a cut in our appropriation; neither do we expect to be level funded. But the amount of the increase we get may not be sufficient to adequately address important needs that we have, including faculty salaries.

We are making some unusual efforts this year to tell our story. They include a state-wide advertising campaign, as well as the face-to-face lobbying that occurs in Montgomery. We have joined hands with the other universities in this state to form a High er Education Partnership to present our case collectively and we have sought advice on how to deal with the political environment in Alabama.

These efforts will bear fruit, although it may take some time for the results to be apparent. For example, the advertising campaign which is just beginning to run throughout the state should affect public opinion, which in turn should influence legislati ve action. The probability of that occurring during this legislative session is remote, but we have to look at this matter in the long, as well as the short, run. The advertising should also have a secondary effect in stimulating student interest in the University and the willingness of donors to contribute.

The constraints with which we have to deal are real and significant. Let me review those factors for you briefly:

1. We have a K-12 education system in Alabama that is under-funded and, in too many places, woefully inadequate to address the educational needs of our state's young people. Although there are certainly many ways that our elementary and secondary school systems could achieve greater efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness, by almost any comparison, the public schools in this state have fewer dollars per pupil to work with than do their counterparts in other states in the Southeast and across the nat ion. Just as it is in higher education, the number of dollars per student is the key variable in determining the quality of education that can be provided.

2. The lion's share of the responsibility for funding public schools in this state has been assumed by the state legislature rather than local communities. As an illustration of that point, recent SREB data indicated that the average number of dollars p er student that is contributed at the local level in Alabama is $800 per year, compared to an average of $2,400 per year in the other Southeastern states. The number of dollars contributed at the state level, by comparison, is nearly equal to the Southea stern average. A major step toward improving our local schools could be achieved by greater local support, but that would require an increase in ad valorem taxes at the local level. There has been, and likely will continue to be, strong resistance to in creasing taxes in many of the counties where the need for improved educational services is so great.

3. We have a governor in this state who recognizes the need for improved funding at the K-12 level and has sought to remedy that inequity by transferring money from higher education. As you know, higher education and K-12 education in this state are bot h funded out of the Alabama Special Education Trust Fund. The tax revenue that goes into that fund has traditionally been split between K-12 and higher education on a two-thirds/one-third basis. That was the arrangement prior to the first year of the Ja mes administration. In the three years since Governor James's election, counting the proposed budget for 1997 98, higher education's share of the Education Trust Fund has dropped from 33% to 27%. This change has been much more significant than you, I suspect, imagine. According to our calculations, if the traditional split had been maintained, and if the Auburn University System had received its proportionate share of the appropriation for higher education, we would have received a total of $86 million in increased state appropriations over this three-year period. That total includes AUM, the extension system, the experiment stations, and this campus. That would have provided ample funds for appropriate salary increases each year, for addressing many of our deferred maintenance problems, and for addressing other important needs.

4. Governor James is convinced that higher education in this state is overfunded. Unfortunately, there are some statistics that give credence to the Governor's arguments. The one he most likes to cite is that of the number of dollars per capita that Al abama spends on higher education, compared to neighboring states. While that is true, we can show him clearly that the number of dollars appropriated to Auburn and to many of the other universities is considerably lower on a per student basis than are da ta for comparable universities in neighboring states. He, in turn, claims that this is true because Alabama has too many institutions of higher education. On that point we agree.

5. The prospects of dealing with Alabama's overgrown system of higher education are slim. The issue is complicated and fraught with politics from top to bottom. It is not a problem that I can do anything about. It is not a problem that the Legislature wants to do anything about. Every institution has its constituencies, who will fight hard to protect it. It is natural that people will fight to save their own hide. We would do the same if Auburn was the target for elimination. The only solution tha t has any chance of success, in my opinion, would be to give a state agency the full authority to implement and enforce standards of productivity and quality for all of the degree programs in both two year and four-year institutions and to allocate monies to each institution based upon its performance against those standards. The Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) could perform that role if it was given the authority and permitted to exerci se it by the Legislature. Perhaps a better decision would be a Board of Regents with the clear authority to govern all institutions of higher education. Such a body would need to have a strong measure of independence from the political process, a condit ion that neither the Governor nor the Legislature is likely to favor.

Where does all of that leave us? It leaves us in the same position we have been in for the last few years. In the position where we need to assume greater responsibility for our own destiny, recognizing the things that we can change and those that we ca nnot. We cannot change the political system or environment in
Alabama. At least, not in the short run. But we can continue to use our resources wisely. We have made much progress in this regard and we need to have the courage and the will to maintain that effort.

Among the things that we cannot change but may be able to influence over the long haul is the funding of local schools. If acceptable legislation can be passed that will require a greater contribution at the local level, we should support such a constitu tional amendment. The Starkey Bill that is being debated this year has, according to a number of educational experts, several serious weaknesses. If those are corrected and the legislation is passed and put before the general public, we may have somethi ng with which to work.

Concerning the formation of a Board of Regents, greater control by a state agency such as that may strike one as disadvantageous. I would argue that it may be the only way the problems in Alabama can be dealt with. I am confident that Auburn can compete effectively and would be advantaged by the imposition of any standards of productivity or quality that are used objectively. If we can't, we deserve to lose the programs and the dollars that are at stake.

One example of a quality standard that I feel we desperately need is a Rising Junior Exam like those that have been implemented in some other states. This is a test over the core curriculum, or general education requirements, that a student would be expe cted to take during the first two years of an baccalaureate degree program. Whether the student takes these courses at a two-year or a four-year institution, they need to have covered a common body of knowledge and be able to demonstrate their understand ing and proficiency over that material. There should be some threshold score on the Rising Junior Exam that would be necessary for a student to advance to the upper division. This would ensure that all students, whether they took their general education courses at a two-year or a four-year school, would be adequately prepared for the work in the major or professional curriculum that they choose. The average score of an institution's students on the Rising Junior Exam could also be used as a measure of the quality of education they provided.

The State of Alabama, under the direction of the Alabama Legislature, is moving towards the imposition of a common first two years of course work for students at four-year institutions and for those at two-year institutions who are in college transfer pro grams. It would be a natural extension of that work to include a Rising Junior Exam to ensure that work at different schools are of comparable quality. I think we ought to work toward that objective.

There are a number of things that we as an institution should do and are in the process of doing in order to cope with the environment we are currently in and in which we expect to be for the foreseeable future. I have proposed these
measures on several occasions in the past, so let me simply reinforce those ideas here:

1. We need to continue to raise our tuition until it is at a level at least equal to that of other doctoral universities in the Southeast. We have an excellent educational program to offer and we should not underprice it. Let me underscore again that d ollars per student are the most important variable in our ability to maintain our nationally recognized quality. The dollars must come from either the state appropriations or from student tuition.

2. We need to aggressively recruit the best students we can attract, from both in state and out-of-state. We need to ensure that students, from other states are charged the rate of tuition that covers the full cost of their education, thereby assuring that the taxpayers of the state of Alabama do not underwrite that education. I beli eve that we have the ability to attract outstanding students from around the country and we need to do a better job of ensuring that they know about Auburn and what it has to offer.

3. We need to do the very best job that we can in using our scarce resources. We have a strategic plan in place that has been approved by the Board of Trustees. We need now to implement that plan so that we can maximize the probability of achieving our goals and objectives. Executive Vice President Don Large, in his new role as the university's chief planning officer, will be working with me and with each of the vice presidents to establish a process for regular reporting on the results that are being achieved, consistent with the plans that we have developed and, to report to the Board of Trustees on an annual basis our progress. I am in the process of developing for the Board a more precise and focused strategic plan, drawing from the recommendatio ns of the 21st Century Commission that were adopted by the Board of Trustees at their March meeting.

One of the key elements of our strategic plan will be to provide greater focus to our educational efforts at the graduate level. Auburn has gained considerable recognition for the strength of its undergraduate programs. But very few programs at the grad uate level appear anywhere in the national rankings, either those done by the U. S. News and World Report or the National Research Council. Most of our graduate programs serve local or regional needs. If those needs are strong and clearly identified and if the constituents whose needs are being addressed feel that the program is of high quality, we need to maintain those programs. But, as a graduate research institution, it would seem that we ought to have a few programs that are capable of competing at a national level. I don't expect that list of programs to be long, probably less than ten. Clearly, the process by which those areas would be selected needs to be carefully conceived and implemented, using objective criteria. This will likely mean that graduate programs that do not serve a strong local or regional need and or that have a clear capability of competing nationally, should be phased down or out. I expect such a process to create some anxieties, but that will be necessary f or us to progress. The alternative is to remain in a situation where substantial amounts of our resources are being invested in activities that are returning very limited results for either the institution or its students.

4. Finally, I think it is extremely important that all of us be more sensitive to the need to demonstrate to the taxpayers of the state the positive impact that all of our activities produce. The ad campaign that we have undertaken is one way to tell th at story. But each of you in the various activities in which you are involved can help to carry that message. This is particularly true in all of our outreach efforts. We need to think of our research results in terms of the benefits that are possible to various constituents and make sure the potential users are aware of their applicability.

Too many people in this state and other states as well do not see any significant benefits that they receive from higher education. All of us need to do a better job of helping others to understand the importance of our contributions.