Skip to content
Blog

Category: Higher Ed Policy

WA Higher Education Task Force Report Released

Posted on

Last summer, Governor Gregoire created a Higher Education Task force, comprising both public and private leaders, and charged them with proposing a new funding strategy for public higher education, as well as new ideas for increasing institutional accountability. The Task Force released its report yesterday, January 3rd, recommending three major reforms to higher education policy in Washington State.

First, the group suggested that tuition setting authority be given to the universities to help make up for budget cuts from the legislature. Based on their proposal, the institutions would use a formula to determine appropriate tuition rates, taking into account state appropriations, tuition at peer institutions, and enrollment levels.

Second, the Task Force proposed the creation of a Washington Pledge Scholarship Program, which would be funded by private donors. They hope the fund would reach $ 1 billion by the end of the decade. Corporations would receive a tax credit for donating, although that benefit would not kick in until overall tax revenue returned to 2008 levels.

Third, they recommended that the state give cash incentives to universities that meet certain degree production targets. In addition, they encourage universities to make plans to reach retention goals set forth by the state.

Finally, the Task Force listed other money-saving strategies, such as including more online introductory-level classes, developing three-year degrees, giving more credit for college-level work done in high school and at other institutions, and eliminating underused degree programs.

Make sure to check the State Relations blog for a round-up of some of the local press coverage relating to this report.

Op-Eds Call for Increased Flexibility for Public Higher Ed in WA

Posted on

Three op-eds published recently by local newspapers outline the changing relationship between Washington State and its public higher education institutions. All three op-eds call for the state to increase institutional flexibility in the face of large budget cuts.

The Governor will release her initial state budget for the 09-11 biennium this morning. Stay tuned to the Office of State Relations and the Office of Planning and Budgeting for information about how higher education and the UW are affected.

UC Commission Proposes Familiar Strategies for Cutting Costs

Posted on

The University of California Commission on the Future recently released its final report addressing potential solutions for keeping public higher education in California vibrant in the face of declining resources.

A group that included regents, administrators, faculty and students, the Commission’s 50 page report recommended a host of actions for UC to consider, including:

  • Expand on the somewhat controversial UC Online Instruction Pilot Project
  • Develop and offer three year degree programs where feasible
  • Increase nonresident student enrollment from 6% to 10% to generate additional tuition revenue
  • Ease the community college student transfer process

The Commission also acknowledged that in extreme financial circumstances the UC system might need to consider raising both tuition and nonresident enrollment even more sharply, and consider decreasing resident enrollment and/or financial aid.

The Commission rejected other popular proposals such as differentiated tuition by major or class status, and the practice of cohort tuition pricing.

The UC Commission’s recommendations are familiar to anyone keeping up with current discourse on higher education reforms. While the recommendations may have considerable merit, none constitute the re-imagining recently proposed by one of UC’s own, John Aubrey Douglass.

Federal Maintenance of Effort Requirement Makes State Financial Aid Programs Vulnerable

Posted on

Both the American Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009 and the 2010 Education Jobs Fund provided federal funding for education. In exchange for accepting federal funds, both fiscal relief vehicles came with Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provisions requiring states to continue financial support for higher education institutions at certain minimum levels. However, some forms of state support, such as capital projects, financial aid, and research support are exempt from MOE calculations.

The UW received ARRA funding in the state budget in the 2010 fiscal year. As a result, MOE requirements from both federal actions helped protect higher education funding in Washington State from what may have been even deeper budget cuts. Last year, the State reduced higher education spending down to the federally-required MOE floor for fiscal year 2011. Federal MOE requirements expire after FY 2011.

Due to a state budget deficit that continues to grow, the Governor has called a special session to achieve another round of mid-year budget cuts for the current fiscal year. If the state further reduces funding for higher education, it must choose to violate the federal MOE mandate, or reduce state support for higher education activities exempt from federal MOE, primarily the State Need Grant (SNG), Washington’s need-based financial aid funding program.

In her proposed special session cuts for FY 2011, the Governor chose the latter, recommending that the state delay $76 million of SNG funding until July 1, 2011 (start of FY 2012), with institutions temporarily funding the gap to protect students. The UW’s share of this funding shortfall would be $15 million. While the Governor’s proposal assumes reimbursement on the first day of the new fiscal year, delay of this payment would require the University to cut $15 million to balance its current FY 2011 budget. In addition, given the $5.7 billion state deficit that remains for the upcoming 2011-13 biennial budget, it is not at all certain that this delayed payment would be made to institutions in 2012, when the federal maintenance of effort provision will no longer be in effect.

Any option that reduces or delays funding for higher education will impact University of Washington faculty, staff and students. The Office of State Relations and the Office of Planning and Budgeting will work hard to keep the UW community up to date on special session, and important state budget related news in the coming days.

Elevating the College Cost Debate

Posted on

As we reported last month, two economists at the College of William and Mary have published a new book called Why Does College Cost So Much?. We are almost finished reading this very well written and researched book and will provide our own assessment soon.

In the meantime, the book continues to generate passionate discussion–see Stanley Fish’s column at the New York Times. If you are as intrigued by this topic as we are, and have a lot of time to spare over Thanksgiving break, I might suggest reading some of the 400+ comments left on Fish’s column. To keep the discussion going, Fish handed his column over to the book’s authors, Robert Archibald and David Feldman, to address some of the most common objections to their arguments. If you really want to punish yourself, readers have thus far left another 240+ comments to sift through!

And for a break from all of this talk about budget cuts and cost crises, here are some links to a couple of feel-good, holiday themed pieces published today:

Inside Higher Ed: In Praise of the Americans

The Chronicle of Higher Education: On Gratitude in Academe

We wish the entire UW community a very happy Thanksgiving holiday. Stay warm and travel safely!

Should Federal Government Support a Regional Approach to Public Higher Ed?

Posted on

The Center for American Progress released a new report, Easy Come, EZ-GO: A Federal Role in Removing Jurisdictional Impediments to College Education, that presents a bold argument for the creation of Education Zone Governance Organizations (EZ-GO), which would provide federal resources to help ease barriers to higher education for citizens of metropolitan areas that cross state borders (20 out of 44). The Center argues that a more regional approach to higher education in such areas is necessary to reach ambitious new college attainment goals.

While higher education policy has historically been formed at the state-level due to state funding of institutions, the report asserts that this strategy is no longer sufficient given the growth of higher education participation coupled with the increased mobility of Americans. This is especially illustrated in the 20 metropolitan areas they identify as crossing state lines. In these locations, citizens are often restricted in their access to affordable, quality higher education based on their state of residence, primarily due to:

  • State based financial aid
  • Residency based tuition pricing
  • Credit transfer policies between institutions

One of five Americans live in such areas, including in Portland, a metropolitan area that reaches into Washington State. The majority of the institutional capacity in the Portland metropolitan area is located in the State of Oregon, which means that your specific address has real ramifications for your access to affordable higher education, which these authors argue is suboptimal for increasing attainment.

Ultimately, they recommend that the federal government create EZ-GO areas (overseen by an EZ-GO Commission) to:

  • Provide technical support to develop EZ-GO-wide articulation agreements
  • Support capital investments to built up institutional capacity
  • Assist in matching postsecondary programs to local labor markets
  • Encourage partnerships between institutions and across sectors

Expect a lot of proposals like this one to surface as stakeholders across the nation grapple with how to, in a relatively short period of time, raise the percentage of Americans with a two-year or four-year degree from 38% to 60%.

Emphasis on STEM Degree Production

Posted on

Hi, my name is Anja Speckhardt, and I am a student assistant here at the Office of Planning and Budgeting, as well as a freshman at the UW. As a part of my job at OPB, I have been given the privilege to occasionally post to the blog about interesting topics I’m researching. Today, I chose to write about the current emphasis many policymakers, employers and institutions place on STEM education. This is especially exciting and relevant to me as an incoming freshman, as I explore the plethora of major options here at the UW. Thanks for reading!

For some time now, legislators at the state and national levels have been emphasizing degree production in “high demand” fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Spurred on by President Obama’s call to increase the number and quality of math and science teachers, and aware of the large engineering, software, and technology corporations integral to Washington State’s success and job market, Washington State’s Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) proposed a Fund for Innovation to increase the number of high demand degrees awarded (among other objectives).  Among their reasons are that, in comparison to other fields, job prospects in STEM are still promising, student demand for these majors is high, and technology and science are important for innovation.

The University of Washington is well-known for its outstanding medical, nursing and engineering schools, as well as its strong math and science programs. Additionally, from its earliest days, the UW has had an important relationship with the firms in the area:  the wind tunnel, partly sponsored by Bill Boeing in 1939, is a perfect example of this. Support for STEM programs is integral to the UW’s success, because students have come to expect access to and excellence from these departments.

However, it is important to remember that not all of the students attending the UW are technologically or scientifically inclined and seek to impact the world in other ways. Some highly intelligent and motivated students choose to major in history, music theory, or political science, or one of the many other fantastic programs in humanities, social sciences, and fine arts. The UW is home to a highly ranked International Studies school, as well as a leading Business school. We don’t only have a wind tunnel, we also display the largest book in the world—a book of photography.

The UW’s extensive General Education requirements allow students to explore many disciplines and choose to pursue those that interest them the most. The University is a venue for exploring interests and giving students the opportunity to find their passion—be it biochemistry or French.

This brings up the interesting question of the purpose of a university: Is it primarily to further education in all its multifaceted forms, or should its focus lie solely in career preparation? Presently, career preparation has taken hold as an important, if not primary, goal of a university as well as a measure of its success. However, it is critical that such focus and investment not be at the expense of the multiplicity of disciplines and inclinations that are an important part of the UW’s success and each student’s experience. In fact, new research shows that a high GPA and a good work ethic can be a better recommendation to future employers than a degree in a certain field.

APLU Releases Regional Meetings Report

Posted on

In advance of the 123rd annual meeting in Dallas on November 14, The Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) has released the final report resulting from five regional meetings to discuss key concerns about the future of public research universities, one of which took place at UW Seattle on April 26, 2010.

The report, Ensuring Public Research Universities Remain Vital, outlines the important contributions that public research institutions like the UW make to knowledge, society and the economy. The report also reaffirms the need for institutions to remain committed to their public mission of providing world class education that is affordable and accessible, and for the states to remain committed to facilitating that mission by restoring and protecting the public investment in higher education.

Additionally, the report addresses ways that the federal government can help keep US public research institutions vital. First, by reforming indirect cost reimbursement rate setting policies and regulations associated with federal research grants. Second, by exploring ways that the federal government can partner with institutions to provide operating support, including endowed faculty chairs, funding for doctoral trainees, and new targeted research funding.

New Federal Higher Ed Regulations Published Today

Posted on

Having weighed tens of thousands of public comments, the US Department of Education released today a final set of regulations governing various aspects of higher education. While primarily aimed at what are widely seen as abuses within the for-profit higher education system, the regulations apply to all institutions and are driven by the federal government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the federal government’s $170+ billion annual investment in higher education via student aid programs (governed by Title IV of the US Higher Education Act).

Notably, final regulations regarding the controversial gainful employment rule were not published today. Having received over 90,000 public comments and facing an intense for-profit sector lobbying effort, the Department has indicated a need for more time before it is able to finalize gainful employment regulations. The Department will host public meetings on the rule on November 4th and 5th.

Inside Higher Ed has a good overview of the regulations released today, which will take effect in July 2011, as well as links to the rules and a list of the revisions made since the initial rules were proposed. Major changes include:

  • Eliminates loopholes allowing institutions to provide incentive pay for admissions and financial aid employees. The rules now explicitly state that incentive payments for employees can not “in any part” be based on enrollment or financial aid metrics.
  • Revises the definition of a credit hour for the purpose of awarding federal student aid.
  • Clarifies the timeline for returning federal student aid when a student is no longer enrolled.
  • Requires for-profit institutions to provide easily accessed graduation and job placement statistics, as well has college cost calculators.
  • Requires institutions to notify DOE of new non-degree certificate programs, some of which DOE may determine require a formal application for federal approval (note that this is an area where feedback/lobbying had a significant impact as the original rule required DOE approval for all such programs).

These rules represent a large step for the federal government in regulating higher education in the US.

For more information on the federal government’s intensifying scrutiny of the for-profit higher education sector and why it matters to traditional institutions, see our previous posts: Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges, and Under Federal Fire, For-Profit Colleges Point Finger at Publics.