As states eye college consolidation, leaders should draw from previous lessons learned

In today’s politically polarized environment, it is notable that the Republican governor of Oklahoma and the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania announced similar major higher education policies within weeks of each other. The proposed course of action on which Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro seem to have aligned: consolidating public higher education within their respective states. 

In Oklahoma, this means combining colleges and universities, shrinking the total number of institutions in the state. Pennsylvania — which has already merged several public institutions —  is looking to create a new governance structure that would bring the state’s community colleges and publicly-owned state universities under one umbrella. In Oklahoma, Stitt is hoping to share administrative costs among small institutions and eliminate duplicative programs, while in Pennsylvania, Shapiro plans to better align the state’s community colleges and universities’ offerings with the state’s workforce needs. Both governors seem to agree that these measures are needed to ensure a strong future workforce for their states.  

Both governors, like policymakers and higher education leaders across the country, are responding to financial, demographic, and political trends that have been challenging for many colleges. Declining enrollments, shifting demographic projections, budget shortfalls, the waning of pandemic-era federal funding for higher education, growing pressure to align education and workforce systems coupled with growing public skepticism about the worth of higher education — all have raised pressure for higher education to change. 

While it is important for higher education leaders to face the financial realities in front of them, what should not be overlooked is the impact these decisions to reorganize have on the students and communities served by higher education institutions. Thankfully, leaders aren’t left to make these decisions in a vacuum. There have been previous waves of mergers and consolidations within public higher education systems from which lessons can be learned. In 2021, Ithaka S+R released a series of case studies and a summary report examining consolidations in the Texas, Wisconsin and Georgia public college and university systems, with a particular focus on their implications for equality of educational opportunity. Among other insights, our team identified three critical lessons that are particularly relevant for policymakers and institutional leaders to bear in mind.

First, pressure-test consolidation plans by considering how they will likely impact historically marginalized students. Will the most desirable programs no longer be accessible to rural learners where they live? Will streamlined administrative offices make navigating financial aid harder for lower-income students? Will students of color lose a campus environment where they feel they most belong? The needs of these students have long been overlooked by higher education. Planning from the outset with their interests in mind — and with plans to measure the impact of changes on their outcomes — will ground the reorganized system in equality of opportunity for all.

Second, consider the impact on all stakeholders. A lot of the attention in the consolidation context is, rightfully, on current and prospective students. However, higher education institutions are the sites of many personal and economic connections, and faculty, staff, alumni, and members of the communities in which the institutions are located will want to weigh in on or participate in implementing the consolidation. How will these consolidations impact the broader communities? What will happen to a rural community if one of its largest employers and opportunity centers disappears? What will the future economic development prospects for that community be? There are important equity considerations and implications for these stakeholders as well. 

Third, consolidations are easier to carry out when they are targeted to growth rather than when they are acts of retrenchment. Efforts to reorganize have ground to a halt when they were presented primarily as ways of winding down struggling institutions, as opposed to strengthening higher education offerings in the state. Closing down institutions or making significant cuts to programs and jobs without good data and evidence for how the changes preserve opportunity and promote growth can derail these efforts in the long run. Transparency in the decision-making processes and goals will be necessary to get buy-in from students and communities alike. 

The recent consolidation announcements by leaders in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania are unlikely to be the last, as shifting forces impact higher education in most states. For example, since those announcements, we’ve seen the introduction of legislation in Mississippi to mandate the closure of three of the state’s public universities by 2025. We’ve learned that in the intricate mix of politics, negotiations and practical tasks relating to consolidation, it’s easy for those in power to overlook the interests of marginalized students and other stakeholders. It’s crucial to consciously center equitable access to opportunity throughout the process, from consideration through implementation, and to target and track the results for marginalized populations through our educational systems and into the strong future workforces that all states feel an imperative to build.

Martin Kurzweil is vice president of educational transformation at Ithaka S+R, a non-profit higher education research organization. Elise Miller McNeely is senior program manager for  educational transformation at Ithaka S+R.