Skip to content
Blog

Category: Archive

Content posted prior to 2020. Will not be remediated for accessibility unless specifically requested.

Increasing Support for Higher Ed not a Taxpayer Priority

Posted on

The Pew Center on the States teamed up with the Public Policy Institute of California to assess taxpayer attitudes toward state government, budget cuts, and funding priorities during the Great Recession. The survey was conducted in five states– Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois and New York– , which, together, comprise 1/3rd of the nation’s population, 1/3rd of the nation’s output, and almost 45 percent of the total projected state budget gaps for 2011.

The resulting report, Facing Facts: Public Attitudes and Fiscal Realities in Five Stressed States, highlights surprising similarities across the five states where respondents, in general, agreed on the following points:

  • That state government could deliver the same services with fewer resources (even up to 10-20% less).
  • That state government is untrustworthy and could be more effective.
  • That taxes on the wealthy, corporations and particular goods or behaviors like alcohol, smoking and gambling are favored.
  • That state governments are relying too heavily on borrowing money.
  • That K-12 Education and Health and Human Services are seen as the most essential services worth protecting, even if general tax increases are required.

Notably, survey respondents were significantly less likely (by 20-30 percent) to support tax increases to protect higher education than they were to protect K-12 education. These results seem to confirm that while providing a K-12 education is seen as a public obligation, a college education is seen as less essential and something that the student and family should help pay for.

The mere presence of tuition in the funding model for public higher education might also be affecting how citizens view increasing taxpayer support to institutions. Tuition simultaneously provides a reason to believe that universities can better handle state budget cuts because they can raise money elsewhere, and provides a visible and increasing price tag that frustrates citizens who think that this represents inefficiency.

These survey results are consistent with recent polling in Washington.

CA to Vote on Budget that would Restore Some UC Funding

Posted on

The California State Legislature is set  to vote on the budget for FY10-11 (current fiscal year) today; 99 days after the start of the fiscal year.  Based on negotiations among the gang of five (governor and majority and minority leaders from senate and assembly) the budget should pass.

The starting problem for California was a $17.9 billion shortfall, To ‘solve’ this problem the state did the following:

  • Expenditure Reductions  -$7.5
  • Use of one time Federal Funds  $5.3
  • Additional Revenues $2.5
  • Fund Shifts, Other Revenues  $2.8
  • Alternative Funding $0.5
  • Baseline Workload Adjustments -$0.2
  • Total Solutions $18.3
  • Final Reserve $0.4

The $18 billion deficit represents ~20 percent of the state’s $87.5 billion general fund, compared to an estimated 2011-2013 biennial shortfall in Washington State of $4.5 billion, ~14 percent of a $31 billion biennial budget (pre mid-year cuts in FY 11).

One area California chose not to reduce was its university systems.  The University of California received an increase of $370 million in new state funding – an increase of 14 percent over their FY10 state funding base of $2.6 billion.  The funding is broken out as follows:

  • $199m in permanent dollars as a start of restoring the base
  • $106m in temporary funds (with a stated goal of converting these to permanent funds)
  • $51m in permanent funds for new enrollment
  • $14m in permanent funds for health benefit cost increases

While one could argue that this California budget proposal is based on overly optimistic revenue projections, it is clear that they have made a loud statement on the importance of their public universities.

OPB Web Spotlight

Posted on

Be sure to regularly check the Spotlight section on the OPB homepage where we post links to important documents and work products that have been posted to our website. Currently you will find links relating to recent budget cuts, and the altered time-line for implementing an activity-based budgeting (ABB) approach at the UW, among other things.

Additionally, OPB Briefs (recent and archived) are always posted to our website.

Under Federal Fire, For-Profit Colleges Point Finger at Publics

Posted on

As a result of recent federal scrutiny, the for-profit higher education industry and its supporters have begun to turn their protests toward the unfairness of singling out the for-profit companies while ignoring traditional higher education’s non-profit institutions, particularly public community colleges and four year institutions.

Congressional scrutiny of for-profit education companies comes at the same time that the Obama administration has been pushing new Department of Education regulations that would use three tests– debt-to-earnings ratio for students, debt-to-discretionary income ratio for students, and the loan repayment rate of students—to determine whether a for-profit program would be eligible for federal financial aid funds under Title IV. A large lobbying effort led to over 90,000 public comments on these “gainful employment” regulations, causing the Department to delay publication of the rule.

Opponents of these rules and hearings include Republicans and Democrats as well as various interest groups, many of whom receive large sums of money from the for-profit education industry. The sector’s industry group, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (known up until September 22 as the Career College Association), institutions, and other stakeholders have spent millions waging a campaign against further regulation. Notably, these lobbying efforts include Chairman and CEO Donald Graham whose Washington Post Company owns Kaplan as well as an 8% stake in Corinthian Colleges, both giants in the for-profit education sector that currently provide over 60% of the Post’s annual revenue. The Post has been called to task for using its opinion and editorial pages to argue against the regulations.

At a HELP Committee hearing on September 30th, three Republican Senators, Richard Burr (NC), John McCain (AZ) and the committee’s ranking minority member Mike Enzi (WY), emphasized their disappointment that the scope of the hearings did not include non-profit institutions. Additionally, for-profit institutions have funded two reports claiming that for-profit colleges are more efficient at producing graduates, and more responsible with taxpayer dollars than non-profit institutions, including community colleges, public four years and private four years. The increased aggressiveness with which proponents of for-profit education are attacking traditional higher education with misleading information and data is troubling. The market share of for-profit institutions continues to rapidly grow alongside ambitions to compete with traditional institutions.

Ultimately, federal attention paid to this issue is a possible harbinger of increased scrutiny for all of higher education. The federal government spends over $170 billion dollars on student aid (loans and grants) each year, potentially providing powerful grounds for increased federal oversight. Looking forward, some of the same questions being asked of for-profit colleges about debt burden, retention, and completion could be asked of the non-profit sector as well. The combination of rapidly rising tuition in an economic crisis, concerns about US competitiveness in the global economy, and the aggressive goals to nearly double the portion of Americans with some level of higher education may create a compelling case for increased federal attention.

Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges

Posted on

The atmosphere was tense on the morning of September 30th as attendees, many of them proponents of the for-profit higher education sector, overflowed into a second room to witness a hearing held by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP). The hearing, The Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Are Students Succeeding, was the third in a series held by the HELP committee under the leadership of its Chairman, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA).

A GAO report on the results of an undercover operation that investigated 15 for-profit education companies revealed “misleading, deceptive, overly aggressive or fraudulent recruitment” practices at all 15 schools visited. Two reports by Senator Harkin’s staff, Emerging Risk?: An Overview of Growth, Spending, Student Debt and Unanswered Questions in For-Profit Higher Education, and The Return on the Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Debt Without a Diploma, provided even more detail, drawing on nationally available data as well as data that Senator Harkin requested directly from 30 of the largest privately held and publicly traded education companies.

Some of the facts revealed in these publications:

  • Less than 10% of postsecondary students are enrolled in for-profits, yet they receive 23% of federal aid, and account for 44% of all loan defaults.
  • 95% of all students at for-profits borrow money to attend, compared to less than a quarter of community college students, 64% of students at public four year institutions, and 72% at private four year institutions.
  • Almost 60% of students at for-profits drop out within 2 years of enrolling.
  • Student enrollment has grown exponentially. For example, in 1991, the University of Phoenix had 7,000 students. Today it has 475,000 and is the 2nd largest higher education system in America, enrolling more students than the Big 10.
  • On average, 90% of all revenue comes from federal student aid dollars (a $24b annual taxpayer investment), belying claims of being purely private sector institutions.

As the hearings have uncovered more information about these companies, Chairman Harkin’s resolve to continue the fact finding mission has strengthened, and he has pledged to sponsor legislation aimed at tightening regulations. Harkin called fundamentally flawed and unconscionable a system that funnels taxpayer dollars through poor students to line the pockets of the wealthy, leaving many students with no diploma, all students with heavy debt, and the taxpayers, who have guaranteed that debt, at risk.

The next hearing will be held in early December.

In our next post we will consider the implications that this issue might have for traditional institutions of higher education like the UW.

NRC Releases Long Awaited Doctoral Program Rankings

Posted on

After five years, $4 million and a lot of effort across many institutions, the National Research Council has released an update to their 1995 assessment of doctoral programs. A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Program in the United States analyzes 2005-06 academic year data collected from over 5,000 doctoral programs at over 200 universities. The NRC collected data directly from faculty, students, graduate programs, and institutions. The Graduate School coordinated UW participation in the assessment, which you can learn more about on their website.

Programs are ranked on the same 21 key variables by two different methodologies, the results of which are reported separately. These methodologies were very complex, but, essentially, the “S” (Survey-Based) rankings weight the relative value of the 21 key variables by program, based on faculty ratings of the relative value of each variables in a given discipline. For example, in the physical sciences, the number of external grants won is weighted more heavily than it would be for an English program. Alternatively, the “R” (Regression-Based) ratings are more similar to the traditional ‘reputation ranking’ where faculty were asked to rank a set of random programs, and then the key variables most associated with the highest ranked programs were assigned the most weight in the overall analysis of programs. Both sets of rankings are reported as ranges (e.g. a program might be ranked as somewhere between 3rd and 11th, at a 90% level of confidence).

While many UW programs do well in these rankings, criticisms of both the data and methodology are important to consider. Inside Higher Ed weighs in with an assessment of the ambivalence surrounding the veracity of the rankings, and the UW’s own Dean of Engineering, Matt O’Donnell, released a statement about possible shortcomings. UW Computer Science & Engineering also issued a strong critique, on which the Chronicle of Higher Education reported. The Chronicle also compiled these data in an easy to use format and offered its own analysis of the report’s delay and overall worth.

How meaningful these rankings are will be debated in the days ahead, but there is at least one important and indisputable conclusion included in the report, which is that public universities play an outsized role in educating our nation’s graduate students:

“Seventy-one percent of the programs ranked in the NRC study are in public universities. The proportion of programs in the universities with the largest programs is similar (70 percent). Among the 37 universities that produced 50 percent of Ph.D.’s from 2002 to 2006, 70 percent were public. Although public universities rely increasingly on nonpublic sources of funding, cutbacks in public funding for universities has a powerful effect on doctoral education simply because of how many large Ph.D. programs exist in public universities.”

National Academies Continue to Sound Alarm Bell on Competitiveness of Research U’s

Posted on

The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine have sponsored an update to their consequential 2005 report entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The latest version is called Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, and can be read online free of charge.

The new report highlights America’s relative decline in global competitiveness by presenting statistics on patent awards, research publications, employer surveys, and student achievement levels in math and science, among other things. While recognizing current economic constraints, the report calls for major investment in and reform of K-12 education, as well as a doubling of the federal basic-research budget to help restore and maintain US competitiveness in the global economy.

One action Congress can take immediately is to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act, which was passed in 2007 largely as a result of the 2005 Gathering Storm report. This Act received one-time federal stimulus funding in 2009, and is set to expire this year without Congressional action. The UW Office of Federal Relations provides regular updates on their blog regarding the Act’s progress in Congress.

In addition to this report, The National Research Council, at the request of Congress, has created the Committee on Research Universities, a panel of business and higher education leaders, to identify the “top ten actions that Congress, the federal government, state governments, research universities, and others could take to assure the ability of the American research university to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States compete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment, and security in the global community of the 21st century.”

The Committee held its inaugural meeting on September 22nd, and is scheduled to meet again in late November.

State Budget Deficits Continue To Grow Across US

Posted on

As the UW works to address the recent 6.3% across the board state budget reduction for Fiscal Year 2011 ($17.1 million for the UW) ordered by Governor Gregoire last week, other states across the country also continue to struggle with growing state budget deficits.

While the recession may have technically ended in June 2009, the pace of recovery has been nonexistent or slow for state budgets that continue to experience reduced revenue collections in the face of continuing high levels of unemployment. For good continuing coverage on how the Great Recession continues to wreak havoc on state budgets, visit the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ frequently updated report on State budget cuts.

As we analyze and reconcile these new cuts for 2011, and prepare for the upcoming legislative session where additional cuts seem likely for the 2011-13 biennium, we will keep you updated on the likely impacts for the University.

Lumina Foundation Sets ‘Big Goal’ for College Attainment

Posted on

The Lumina Foundation has just released a report that presents a case for national and state efforts to increase the percent of Americans with a two or four year degree from 37.9% to 60% by 2025. The report, A Stronger Nation Through Higher Education, makes a case based on future economic growth and international competitiveness, and provides a state level analysis that presents degree attainment levels by ethnicity and by county.

They determine that to reach a degree attainment rate of 60 percent by 2025, Washington State will have to increase degree production by 5,421 (5.9%) each year.

As reported by the New York Times, the Lumina Foundation’s focus on college attainment mirrors similar concerns voiced by President Obama, the College Board, the Gates Foundation, and the National Governor’s Association.