The Washington State Governor's Higher Education Funding Task Force briefed lawmakers today on the various reform options that are being discussed to reset the state's role in higher education.

Gregoire created the task force this past July to focus on three tasks:

• "Develop a realistic and viable long-range funding strategy that provides Washington's students with affordable higher education opportunities.
  
  Recommend ways to improve accountability and performance in our public four-year higher education institutions to ensure we get the very highest value for the state's and student's investment.
  
  Consider whether the higher education system's current governance model should be modified to improve system-wide performance and accountability."

On the issue of higher education funding, the task force is considering seven options (these can be combined):

• Guaranteed Funding Floor: "Guarantee a funding floor or ‘Maintenance of Effort' level to the institutions, set at or near current budgeted appropriations or the percentage of the operating budget. In exchange for this stability, the institutions would guarantee the current level of enrollment, student mix and degree production. Additional funds above the floor could be directed to enrollment, ‘quality' enhancements or high-demand programs."

• Voucher or Stipend System: "Alter the way the state budgets for higher education. Examples of this include providing a voucher to all resident students in lieu of state appropriations to institutions. This would enable entrepreneurial institutions to thrive, and would create incentives to reduce costs. A cap on the number of credit hours would eliminate paying to educate ‘career students' and the availability of funding for every resident may help non-traditional students enter the system. In addition, removing a state subsidy on students from very high-income families allows state dollars to be targeted to those that need the support."

• High Tuition, High Aid: "Certain institutions would be free to raise tuition substantially over current rates. Additional state funds would go towards financial aid and not to these institutions directly. By making state appropriations a lower fraction of their operating budgets, the institutions may be able to withstand funding cuts. They may be more entrepreneurial as attracting undergraduate students becomes more important to their bottom line. Needy students would be held harmless through higher financial aid. As long as student demand is high, the institutions may get more stable revenue to dedicate to instruction."

• Surcharge on Business Licenses: "The state could impose a surcharge on business licenses, or assess a fee paid by businesses when they hire skilled workers. Neither approach would raise enough revenue to fund the institutions, but they could generate a modest pool that could be used for performance incentives or for a high-demand enrollment program."

• Bond Proceed Endowment: "The state could sell bonds to create a modest endowment for higher education and provide some portion of the corpus to one or more campuses. Assuming a 5% payment rate per year, the institutions could share $25 million on a $500 million endowment every year. The state would be responsible for debt service, but could theoretically lower appropriations in exchange for providing the endowment proceeds. If the portfolio grew in value, the annual disbursements could also grow."

• Higher Education Rainy Day Fund: "Create a ‘Rainy Day Fund' dedicated to higher education. The source of revenue matters less than the details surrounding how it would be appropriated and/or protected, but over time, the state would could create a budgetary cushion for higher education. During a recession, this fund would ease pressure on the General Fund by reducing the need for GF-S expenditures in higher education."

• Local Higher Education Taxing Districts: "Create local taxing districts, similar to school boards or Port Districts that would enable institutions to raise their own revenue, either through property tax levies or a sales tax surcharge. There are several ways this could be implemented. For example, the state could authorize local (or regional) districts served by a four-year public university to create taxing districts."

The task force also outlined 11 ways the state could improve higher education accountability. The 11 options were grouped into three categories:

"Improve performance through incentives or metrics

• Implement a performance incentive system, including outcome and progress metrics, tailored to the mission of different institutions.

• Publicly report metrics to increase public awareness of individual institutional performance and higher education performance.

• Use the state's Caseload Forecast Council to determine the number of higher education students the state needs to serve each year.

Increasing efficiency at institutions

• Increase the use of technology for on-line learning generally. Use technology to deliver core courses at a lower cost. Increase the use of common curriculum for core courses and increase the use of on-line texts.

• Require students to pay extra tuition and limit the state subsidy once a student has earned the number of credits required for a bachelor's degree.

• Increase administrative efficiencies by streamlining operations among campuses including shared services; the coordination of purchases; and better use of technology, campuses, and facilities.

• Streamline course offerings by requiring the elimination of underused majors.

Increase efficiencies for students

• Recognize credits earned anywhere in the state and establish policies to streamline transfers between colleges and universities within the two-year system, within the four-year system, and between the two systems.

• Establish standards for awarding credit for prior learning.

• Require college costs and performance to be posted on-line to help students be better informed when they select a college.

• Require three-year bachelor's degrees to be offered to students at some public 4-year institutions."

Also mentioned at today's legislative hearing is a pending Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) report on "Transparency in Higher Education Data." According to JLARC:

"ESHB 2344 (2009) directs JLARC to conduct a study to identify a 'transparent link between revenues, expenditures, and performance outcomes as outlined in the performance agreements developed under RCW 28B.10.920 and the strategic master plan for higher education as adopted by the Legislature.' The state universities, regional universities, and The Evergreen State College are the focus of this study.

While information is available on revenues, expenditures, and performance outcomes in higher education as separate topics, there is little information currently available that links these subjects together in a way that makes them meaningful to policymakers and transparent to the public."

The JLARC report should be released next month.

Filed Under : Higher Education, Transparency

Comment(s)

Higher education wage concessions in California. University of California faces massive budget shortfalls. It is dismaying Calif. Governor Brown. President Yudof and Board of Regents have, once again, been unable to agree on a package of wage, benefit concessions to close the deficit.
Californians face foreclosure, unemployment, depressed wages, loss of retirement, medical, unemployment benefits, higher taxes: UC Board of Regents Regent Lansing, President Yudof need to demonstrated leadership by curbing wages, benefits. As a Californian, I don't care what others earn at private, public universities. If wages better elsewhere, chancellors, vice chancellors, tenured, non tenured faculty, UCOP should apply for the positions. If wages commit employees to UC, leave for better paying position. The sky above UC will not fall.
Californians suffer from greatest deficit of modern times. UC wages must reflect California's ability to pay, not what others are paid. Campus chancellors, tenured & non-tenured faculty, UCOP are replaceable by more talented academics
Wage concessions for UC President, Faculty, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, UCOP:
No furloughs
18 percent reduction in UCOP salaries & $50 million cut.
18 percent prune of campus chancellors', vice chancellors' salaries.
15 percent trim of tenured faculty salaries, increased teaching load
10 percent decrease in non-tenured faculty salaries, as well as increase research, teaching load
100% elimination of all Academic Senate, Academic Council costs, wages.

(17,000 UC paid employees earn more than $100,000)

Overly optimistic predictions of future revenues do not solve the deficit. However, rose bushes bloom after pruning.

UC Board of Regents Sherry Lansing, President Yudof can bridge the public trust gap by offering reassurances that UC salaries reflect depressed wages in California. The sky will not fall on UC

Once again, we call upon UC President, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Faculty, UCOP to stand up for UC and ‘pitch in’ for Californians with deeds - wage concessions.

posted by : Milan
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 10:52 PM  | Permalink

Post Your Comment Here

First Name *
Last Name *
E-mail *
Response *
Enter the characters as they appear in the box to the right *
	* = Required