The US has always demonstrated its commitment to promoting higher education. The federal and state governments have created various programs through which they have established educational institutions. The land grant program is among the initiatives that have allowed millions of Americans to receive higher education. Through this program, states are provided with public land on which they are to set up higher education institutions. Tennessee State University is among the institutions whose establishment is thanks to the land grant program. This institution can exploit its status as a land-grant university to secure equal funding from the Tennessee state legislature.
When establishing the land-grant program, the US Congress included a provision that required states to ensure a 1:1 match to federal funding. This provision means that for every dollar that a land-grant university receives from the federal government, the state is required to provide one dollar. It has been noted with concern that most states are failing to meet the 1:1 match requirement for funding (Lee & Keys, 2013). There are a number of measures that land grant universities such as the Tennessee State University can take to compel the state legislature to honor its obligations. The university could make a formal request to the state legislature as part of its effort to secure equal funding. In a policy brief, John Lee and Samaad Keys note that some of the land-grant institutions which failed to receive equal funding from their states appealed to the state legislature (Lee & Keys, 2013)s. While they do not indicate if this strategy is effective, one can conclude that the institutions achieved some success. Therefore, Tennessee State University should submit a formal request. The school’s leadership should be in the forefront. Given their authority, the school’s leaders are more likely to convince the Tennessee legislature of the need for more funding.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lobbying the state legislature to satisfy the 1:1 funding requirement is indeed a promising initiative. However, unless combined with other approaches, this initiative may fail to deliver the desired outcome. To ensure success, the Tennessee State University leadership should also partner with other stakeholders involved in the provision of higher education in land-grant institutions. Lee and Keys note that some land-grant institutions submit their requests for more funding through the board of Institutions of Higher Learning (Lee & Keys, 2013). The board then forwards the request to the state legislature. As it works with the board, the Tennessee State University will add greater weight to its case. The support from the board will impose pressure on the state legislature to act and release more funds.
The state legislature wields immense influence in determining the amount of funding that land-grant institutions receive. However, the Governor of a state also has a role to play. In some states, it is the Governor who determines the level of funding that is allocated to land-grant institutions. In their policy brief, Lee and Keys indicate that land-grant institutions could submit requests to both the Governor’s office and the state legislature (Lee & Keys, 2013). The leadership of the Tennessee State University should focus its efforts on persuading the state legislature that more funding is needed. However, the leadership should also work with the Governor’s office. As it works with both the state legislature and the Governor’s office, Tennessee State University will enhance its chances of securing more funding.
The discussion above has challenged the leadership of the Tennessee State University to reach out to the Tennessee state legislature for more funding. The university needs to follow the laid-down procedures when engaging the state legislature. In their discussion, Lee and Keys (2013) note that land-grant universities usually submit their requests to the finance committee of the state legislature. Debating matters that concern funding for educational institutions is among the mandates of the finance committee. Working with the finance committee will allow the university to maximize its chances of securing more funding. The finance committee is likely to be more attentive and responsive since it must understand the vital role that adequate funding plays in the delivery of higher education.
The implementation of the procedures outlined above promises to enable Tennessee State University to obtain more funding. However, even after implementing the procedures, it cannot be guaranteed that the state legislature will fulfill the 1:1 match requirement. In the event that the efforts of the university to lobby the legislature fail, the university should consider other avenues of funding. For example, universities rely on revenues from investments such as residence halls to fund their operations (“A Looming Crisis”, n.d). Other universities obtain some funding from endowment income. That Tennessee State University has alternative sources of funding is not to say that the institution should abandon its lobbying efforts. The university should be relentless and persistent in its calls for more funding. The university leadership should join forces with other stakeholders who share its mission of delivering education to convince the state legislature to match the funds that the federal government provides.
In conclusion, most institutions of higher learning are dedicated to their missions. However, many institutions are unable to pursue their missions owing to inadequate funding. State legislatures are partly to blame for the inability of the institutions to discharge their mandate. Such land grant institutions as the Tennessee State University have suffered as a result of the failure of the state legislature to match the federal funding. To compel the legislature to honor its obligation, the university should initiate lobbying efforts. These efforts should seek to appeal to the state legislature to release more funds. The university should also work with such other stakeholders as the Governor’s office.
References
Lee, J. M., & Keys, S. W. (2013). Land Grant but Unequal: State One-to-One Match Funding for1890 Land Grant Universities. Retrieved 24 th February 2018 from
http://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-one-match-funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities/file
A Looming Crisis for HBCUs? An Analysis of Funding Sources for Land Grant Universities.(n.d).
