A Decade of Progress
Chicago State University
A Broad New Mandate
In 1961, the General Assembly in the State of Illinois established the present Board of Higher Education as a permanent, coordinating, planning agency in the State. This action was the culmination of two decades of study commissions and evaluation plans focusing on the needs of the people in the State for postsecondary educational opportunity within a pluralistic institutional framework. The Board statute drafted by the Legislature specifically required the preparation of a "Master Plan" for Illinois higher education taking into account the various roles that could be performed by the public universities, the non-public colleges and universities, the two-year colleges both public and private, and other educational enterprises. This plan was to embrace two decades in its scope and be presented no later than 1965 to the General Assembly, including specific recommendations for legislation to make it effective. The statute also provided that the Illinois BFIE continue its planning activities and bring further recommendations to the legislature from time to time.
The sheer number of institutions of higher education in the State suggests the desirability for planning. At the time of the enabling legislation, there were 121 colleges and universities in Illinois: only three states had more. Among these institutions, there are advanced graduate and research centers of major national importance on one hand, and on the other, a network of public two year colleges closely intertwined with the immediate educational needs of the local communities. This wide diversity of institutions and the numbers of students involved annually is a major imperative for planning the wisest possible use of resources. As the 1964 report to the legislature stressed:
Both physical facilities and qualified staff are in limited supply and it is unlikely that either can be expanded rapidly enough to provide every thing proposed by every institution. Planning ought to provide for additional enrollments and offer means for both extending the variety of programs and for improving their quality. Planning must also provide procedures for correcting existing deficiencies and for eliminating any possible duplication, waste or uneconomic use of resources. Beyond that, planning must determine priorities. Provision must be made first to satisfy the most urgent needs. Orderly arrangements should be developed toward achieving predictable future needs. Tlie entire system of priorities should point toward the achievement of the highest possible goals in Illinois higher education.
The Master Plan itself dealt with a number of different aspects of Illinois higher education: increased enrollments; explosion of knowledge; greater equality of opportunity; expanding programs; differential functions; structure of governance. Three guiding principles governed the recommendations in the Master Plan: preservation of diversity, promotion of flexibility, and the prudent financial determination of priorities. Among the major features of the Plan, these in particular were relevant to the teachers college in Chicago: the special educational needs of commuter students; the expanded technical and semi-technical educational programs; the controlled growth of graduate and research programs; programs of adult education; the supply of qualified faculty and modern instructional techniques; the provision for a better regional institutional balance for enrollments; the provision for rational priorities in capital construction. Relative to teacher education, the plan stated:
A need is also apparent for a thorough study of teacher education, including programs of instruction, certification practices and future needs. The State must estimate the impact of the changing character of the State universities on the production of qualified teachers for all levels of instruction.
Within the Master Plan, State authorization for construction of physical facilities emphasized commuter institutions, and a specific schedule of construction was projected that included the new campus for the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle and the new campus for Chicago Teachers College South, beginning in 1965. In spite of the best laid plans, the teachers college site development, as we have seen, though implemented, was delayed five years. During those years costs moved steadily upward and enrollments began a leveling off across the State (though not at Chicago State), and, as a major consequence, Phase Two building in Illinois has largely come to a halt.
The Plan also provided that then current levels of State support for operating costs of the State universities and the Chicago Teachers College be maintained, with implied increases for salary levels and student enrollment. Of major importance, of course, the Plan recommended that the State acquire the Chicago Teachers College and place it under the governance of the Teacher College Board, itself to be renamed "Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities." This move, as we have noted, was effected in 1965.
As a result of the Master Plan presented to the legislature in July 1964, the 74th General Assembly enacted twenty-seven bills to implement those recommendations in the months that followed. Other changes occurred as a result of the initial and subsequent studies by the Board of Higher Education, for new policy questions were immediately tackled, most importantly those dealing with extending educational opportunity, the theme of Master Plan—Phase II. This document, presented to the legislature in 1966, emphasized educational needs in urban areas; recommended plans for new commuter institutions; recommended that the State acquire the Chicago Teachers College and extend graduate education opportunities for mid-career professionals; consolidated State-supported student assistance programs; made new enrollment and capital expansion estimates; and created the Board of Regency Universities. Subsequent legislation dealing with the reorganization of the Chicago City Colleges system and the establishment of Governors State University in Park Forest South in the metropolitan area had significant, though indirect, effect on the future development of Chicago State.
By the fall of 1970, enrollments in Illinois institutions of higher education had risen to 325,000 students, a 338 percent increase during the decade. The appropriations for public higher education in the State had expanded two and one-half times to $643 million. But already there was the realization that financial resources, State, federal and private, would be limited during the decade of the 1970s. There was also the growing concern about the market imbalance between graduate degree production and oversupply in some areas and critical shortages elsewhere. These were among the concerns which led to the development of Master Plan—Phase III, which was to pursue the development of an integrated system of higher education in Illinois. Necessarily this infringed on the scope and mission of specific institutions, for it meant dealing with the duplication of effort and programs among all institutions. More than 260 individuals across the State were involved in the committee work that went into Phase III. Later in the process, the several systems and their constituent campuses were asked to prepare ten-year plans projecting the aspirations and growth patterns of their campuses. At Chicago State, during the winter and spring of 1970, each department, office, and division completed a self-study for the ten-year development plan. These were published as locus "on the Seventies and became part of the background data for the Illinois Master Plan—Phase III.
Among the twenty recommendations in Phase III presented in May 1971 to the legislature, enrollment maximums were established at all public colleges and universities; production of graduate degrees and Ph.D. programs were limited; a statewide computer network was recommended; and the specific missions of several public institutions were articulated to preserve diversity and define particular planning guidelines for the campuses. There was also a recommendation to "institute a reexamination of teacher preparation and freeze current enrollments pending results of the study." Of particular interest is the statement of mission for Chicago State, for this remains the foundation for the institution's charge as it was authorized later that year to become a multipurpose urban university:
Chicago State College should build upon its strength and reputation for excellence in teacher education and upon its already existing programs for meeting community and urban needs toward the development of a broader range of programs responsive to the needs of its urban commuter clientele. Both undergraduate and master's level teacher education programs should be evaluated and modified as needed to meet the changing challenges of urban education. Programs should be developed at the undergraduate level in business, nursing and other paramedical and social welfarelurban services occupations to take effect in 1972 when the College occupies its new campus. Further responsible development is encouraged of undergraduate and master's level programs in the natural and social sciences and the humanities in support of urban occupation programs and of the objective of improving the quality of human life.
The enrollment maximums for the various institutions in the State were then, as they are now, educated guesses at best of institutional capacity and response of clientele. There appeared to be much more optimism on the local level at Chicago State as to growth than there was in Springfield. Though the internally-produced report at Chicago State projected enrollment increases from 6,000 in 1970 to 16,000 in 1980, these figures did not fully account for demographic shifts in population, socio-economic changes affecting college attendance, and breadth of appeal in specialized programs. In the Master Plan itself, the maximum enrollment recommended for Chicago State over the subsequent five year period was 7,950 students, including 6,680 at the undergraduate level and 1,270 at the graduate level. Even those figures have not been approached by the end of the decade, though enrollments each year at Chicago State have continued on an upward curve.
The Chicago State University Library was officially dedicated the Paul and Emily Douglas Library in 1973. Pictured standing behind Senator and Mrs. Douglas are (L to R) Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Davis, Dr. Fritz Veit, and Dr. and Mrs. Ben Morton.
At Chicago State new program development proceeded along the lines recommended by the Board of Higher Education and in response to specific local needs. By 1973, Chicago State had developed three new baccalaureate degree programs: Black Studies, Business and Administration, and Nursing. In addition to activities planned directly and exclusively for on-campus education of regularly enrolled students, planning was also underway for educational services in various parts of the Chicago metropolitan area.
Extension courses for working adults were to continue to be offered throughout the metropolitan area. Up until 1969-70, such courses were mainly of a kind requested by teachers and other educational personnel. Offerings were now expanded to serve other kinds of general education and occupational education interests. Provisions were also made in the period 1970-80 for expanded availability to community residents of University services in learning skills, reading skills, consumer education, health care, business and management, recreation and child care. In the past the institution had supported on-campus an experimental program for language skill development of gifted children from District 20 of the Chicago Public Schools. Seventy-five children from the area surrounding Chicago State spent time each week in a special on-campus classroom, receiving instruction and guidance from College faculty members and students, as well as from their own teachers, and making use of College instructional, scientific, and other special facilities.
Throughout 1972, excitement at Chicago State began to build as students, faculty and staff looked ahead to occupying the new campus. However, original moving schedules were continually revised and delayed. Construction strikes and long periods of inclement weather aggravated the complexity of moving the university from cramped, century-old quarters to the new site. The move demanded a series of complex and urgent administrative activities and judgments unprecedented at Chicago State. President Byrd, through memos and private meetings, had issued orders directing the move.
In April 1973, misappropriated funds were discovered during a routine audit by the Executive Vice President while Byrd and his wife were travelling in the Far East on a two-month travel grant awarded by the Danforth Foundation. A State audit of finances supported the discovery, indicating that "serious procedural errors" had been made in expenditures, meriting immediate attention. Perhaps the most serious of the audit findings involved monies paid out for a variety of goods and services that could not be found and purchase orders issued for work that was never done. Byrd was notified of the University's problems and two weeks later returned to Chicago.
For nearly three months local and daily Chicago newspapers published audit findings, university funds were frozen, and numerous administrators and staff were questioned by the state attorney general's office for possible criminal action. Byrd, in a report to the faculty senate—at its request—told faculty of the auditors' recommendation that “we have to tighten up our fiscal management.”
A later report, published in June 1973 by a private auditing firm, showed no evidence of apparent fraud in connection with moving. expenses for Chicago State University. However, the report suggested that there be an investigation by some outside agency, perhaps the attorney general's office, of possible collusion between moving and storage firms and employees of Chicago State University. The report itself strongly urged that the Board assign a high priority to improve internal controls uncovered in the purchasing and receiving area of the Chicago State University physical plant.
Byrd forged ahead in an attempt to gain a firm hold on the situation. As he worked to pull his administration together, several student and faculty groups and organizations were calling for his ouster. The Faculty Union, still a local of the Cook County Teachers Union, issued a statement of "no confidence," and the same day, the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors also issued a "no confidence" statement and called for Byrd to be replaced.
The moving scandal, as it came to be known, resulted in a serious decline in the university's image and morale. However, the simple fact was that the people at Chicago State University—students, faculty, staff and administrators—had been doing what no other university family in the country had been asked to do. They had been carrying on the higher education process despite a physical handicap whose influence had been staggering. With the move to the new campus, Chicago State University was given the opportunity to eliminate that negative force and utilize a carefully programmed, well-designed, superbly constructed site where the learning process would be stimulated, not hindered.
Certainly there were many problems and issues yet to meet. As Chicago Teachers College, South, the school had been tendered provisional accreditation by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) following a visitation in 1962. The provisional status was removed after a visit in 1967 and then Chicago State College enjoyed full accreditation by NCATE of all its programs until a visit in the Fall of 1971. Following that visit, representatives of Chicago State University were informed in an "action correspondence" from the NCATE Director that the decision to continue the accreditation of all programs for a period of three years under "show cause" provisions had been reached by the Council. "Show cause" provisions required the institution within a three year period (Fall semester of 1975) to have another visit and to demonstrate that its accreditation should be continued beyond that point.
For an institution undergoing significant and numerous changes, this recommendation was not wholly surprising. Examining teams from the. North Central Association and NCATE, upon visiting the University's former facilities, unanimously proclaimed them the worst imaginable. With the move to the new campus, some of these problems could he corrected. But is was a period of reassessment and questioning of old assumptions across the face of higher education in the country. Between 1967 and 1970, thirty of the country's most prestigious institutions of higher education lost presidents (pre retirement age) who had, up to then, been widely adjudged to be capable, seasoned leaders. In 1970, the American Council on Education tallied something like three hundred colleges and universities looking for presidents.
By 1973, Byrd had served seven years as the school's president. And in terms of length of service, he had become the senior Illinois state university president. Jerome Sachs, Northeastern's president, had resigned that previous October.
In July 1973, Byrd discussed his intentions to resign with Board of Governors Chairman Howard V. Phalin, who urged him to discuss his intentions with other Board members before taking any course of action. Following his meeting with the Board of Governors, it was agreed that Byrd would share his plans with the campus community prior to September 10. However, someone apparently failed to keep a confidence, because by mid-summer news of Byrd's pending resignation became public by way of the news media, which attributed Byrd's resignation to poor health. Byrd strongly denied the news reports, and in a special interview with Tempo, on September 10, 1973, said that he had “never felt better in his life ... I am prepared to compete with anyone my age in a score of lengths in CSU's competition swimming pool.”
The press also gave the impression that Byrd's resignation would become effective immediately upon the naming of a successor. This too was erroneous according to Byrd, who said he would continue his work as president of CSU for the academic year of 1973-74. This he did, but the die was cast and all those present during that year knew that with Byrd would go all remnants of the old administration that had seen Chicago State through these difficult years of transition to a broad new mission.
