On Tuition Flexibility

This Wednesday the Wisconsin Special Task Force on UW Restructuring and Operational Flexibilities will hear from the chancellors of Madison and Milwaukee on several issues, including flexibility for tuition-setting.

I'm on the record as having numerous concerns about the unintended consequences of giving institutional administrators more say over tuition, since they operate under intense local and political pressures to generate more resources which lead them to raise tuition even when it comes at the expense of access commitments. The latter are far more difficult to uphold, since even when people feel strongly about supporting college opportunities for disadvantaged families, the fact is that those families are quite distant from the lives of decision-makers, and thus easy to neglect.

A new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research by Columbia economist Judith Scott-Clayton offers important reminders for this task force and the chancellors.  The access commitment is easy to make in theory, and much harder to fulfill in practice.  Sure, we like to believe that we can simply meet it by redistributing tuition revenue from middle and upper-class families to poorer families via financial aid (discounting).  But this relies on a set of assumptions, including that (a) poorer families will know the discount is coming and ignore the sticker price, (b) they will know and believe this information early enough to ensure their kids are prepared for college (as researchers put it, “potential college students cannot respond to a price subsidy if they do not know it exists"), (c) that this redistribution strategy will survive significant political push-back from the middle and upper-class families, (d) that the unintended divisiveness of the policy won't cause many consequences to campus climate and educational opportunities for the poorer students, and (e) that the access commitment will last even as campus administrations change.

I'm skeptical that these assumptions will be met by the kinds of tuition flexibility proposals we've seen in this country.  Short of a flat-out widely advertised and legislated promise to all Wisconsin residents under $80,000 (or some other income cutoff) that the full costs of attending college will be FREE, I don't think (a) and/or (b) will actually happen.  I don't think anyone knows about (c) or (d) and as for (e), get real-- no one puts this stuff in writing like they ought to.

Back to the NBER paper by Scott- Clayton-- here are key takeaways:

1. The chances are good that the market failure known as incomplete information has become more consequential in recent years as pricing of college has become much more individualized.  Despite decades of informational interventions, misinformation remains widespread-- as Scott-Clayton puts it,  "while many students appear well aware of the benefits of postsecondary education—in some cases even overestimating expected earnings gains—they persistently overestimate costs and are uninformed about sources of potential aid."

2. Creating a more complex system in which costs are higher and more variable, and more discounting is utilized, is unlikely to be offset by purely informational amendments.  In other words, an awareness campaign like that proposed by Biddy Martin last year likely won't even partially solve the problem creating by more tuition complexity.

3.  Informational contraints "can potentially undermine the effectiveness of even very large investments in financial aid."  In other words, we could spend a lot of money without creating much access--and we have to keep that in mind. It's a subject deserving of widespread and thorough public debate.

The lesson from this National Bureau of Economic Research paper for Wisconsin is this:  it's imperative that whatever tuition policy we move towards, it should not exacerbate students’ confusion about cost.   In my estimation, tuition "flexibility" at the institutional rather than System level will create more harm than good from those already left out and left behind by Wisconsin and its universities.

Postscript:  I want to clarify that the hearing on Wednesday will include discussion of two different tuition issues. First, whether the legislature should have granted the Regents flexibility to set tuition and then capped tuition.  I concur with Chancellor Ward that this is inappropriate-- the Legislature has much on its plate, and should allow the UW System Board of Regents the opportunity to convene a full discussion of tuition issues and make its own policies.  There are many ways for various constituencies to make their case to the Regents for keeping tuition very reasonable for Wisconsin residents, and the outcome will have more political legitimacy if done this way. Second, I understand that some chancellors want to have the flexibility to set tuition devolved to their own campus-- rather than have the Regents set it. This is not something Chancellor Ward is arguing for-- in contrast to his predecessor, and to the chancellors of Milwaukee and Stevens Point, he concurs that tuition-setting is an important function of university systems.  Finally, one last point-- anyone who claims that an access agenda is antithetical to an educational quality agenda is caught in the old Iron Triangle rhetoric, and needs to get up to speed.  Access (including diversity) is a key element of quality, and providing quality without access is no way to secure our children's future.

Affordability and Attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher Education

As I noted in a prior post, last week the Wisconsin Scholars Longitudinal Study (which I co-direct) hosted a statewide conference on the issues of affordability and attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher Education.

The research released became part of this morning's UW Regents discussion (start around 1:03).

In case you missed the event, which was attended by more than 150 leaders from all over Wisconsin, you can watch most of it on Wisconsin Eye. The main presentation of findings is here (see part1).

We will also be posting conference materials on the WSLS website soon.

Reforming Wisconsin Public Higher Education

As we move into the closing months of debate over Governor Scott Walker's budget bill, it is becoming clear that there's little appetite for the New Badger Partnership outside of Madison. That's not to say that the Wisconsin Idea Partnership is likely to succeed either.

Instead, the state has begun a very important discussion about the future of public higher education. No one--whether pro or con-NBP-- seems to think what we're doing right now is working terribly well. And the metrics would seem to bear that out --our degree completion rates, access rates, affordability rates-- all are essentially mediocre. We can and must do better, and it's in that spirit that I will begin to propose some principles and prospects for reform.

My proposals are grounded in the spirit of the Morrill Land-Grant College Act of 1862 that helped create the University of Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Idea that helped sustain it. They are also grounded in decades of empirical research on undergraduate education and the actual experiences of today's college students. Finally, please note that they are primarily meant to stimulate discussion and debate-- not to preclude it. Wisconsin needs so badly to engage in a series of frank, fearless conversations about higher education with a much wider representation of opinions and ideas than it has before. Now is the time, and here are some thoughts to get us started.

(1) In the 21st century, the two systems of Wisconsin public higher education could work together to meet the needs for undergraduate and graduate education throughout the state. Right now, they are systems divided, competing for scarce resources. While they enjoy different missions they are in many ways complementary and their work needs to be coordinated. Therefore, I call for serious discussion about creating a central, comprehensive governance board overseeing the work of all of Wisconsin's public colleges and universities. In other words, that board would be charged with the future of both the University of Wisconsin System and the Wisconsin Technical College System. The creation of this kind of governing body should be aimed at elevating the educational missions of our institutions and protecting them from the inappropriate incursion of politics (e.g. intrusions from both the governor's office and the Legislature). Given that both parties have, at various times, objected to the involvement of political actors in the work of these schools, this approach could (eventually) garner bipartisan support. That's not to say it will be without pain-- the move would nearly undoubtedly result in the discovery of some mission overlap or creep and/or redundancy in some services that could results in closures and/or job loss. These are hard truths, but not ones that should be avoided.

(2) To ensure cost-effective operations, all institutions of higher education in Wisconsin need to be treated as the schools they are. In other words, they require greater autonomy from state government in a key set of domains. They are unlike other state agencies in terms of their work, their personnel, and their ways of operating. Schools are not businesses, and will not run effectively (and therefore efficiently) as such. Serious consideration needs to be given to finding the means with which to free them from red tape with regards to (a) personnel issues including hiring and compensation, (b) procurement, and (c) construction.

(3) Just like many other not-for-profit institutions, going forward the Wisconsin higher education system should be allowed to retain the revenues it generates as long as it uses them solely for educational purposes-- in other words to satisfy its mission. The state should not be allowed to "sweep" said revenues from the System for non-educational purposes. The possible exception might be to take them for use in funding the state need-based financial aid program -- but ideally that program should be administered by a board that coordinates the work of both UW System and WTCS. Notice that I am suggesting that individual institutions may still have to give up some revenues to the System; that sort of tax facilitates redistributive activities that benefit the common good as long as the revenues are used for educational purposes.

(4) Ensuring the accessibility and affordability of Wisconsin public higher education in the 21st century requires strong oversight of tuition and financial aid policies. Left to their own devices, colleges and universities have significant impetus to act to maximize the opportunities for their employees rather than their students. To control this tendency, a central board needs to coordinate these policies across institutions-- this is an important part of what makes them part of a system. It is also what makes degree completion possible for students who--for a wide variety of reasons-- attend multiple institutions en route to a degree (today that includes more than 1 in 2 undergraduates).

There are four ideas. Let's have at 'em- and let's develop more. Please join the conversation.

Let's Develop Solutions

Tired of the rhetoric? Want to take a stab at cutting costs in Wisconsin public higher education yourself-- or even try increasing productivity?

The Lumina Foundation has supported the development of an amazing interactive tool that helps you do just that.

Here's one result I generated:

Let's say we need to close the 2025 budget gap for Wisconsin public research universities to maintain current spending per FTE student. We can do that by increasing student/faculty ratio from 13:1 to 17:1. Period. Gap closed. No increases in tuition or state & local revenues necessary. And research suggests that such an increase will come at no significant cost to degree completion rates. If you want to suggest it will hurt instructional quality, you'll need to provide hard causal evidence to support that case-- I'd love to see it--email it to me!

Better yet, let's first increase faculty salaries per FTE to the 75th percentile (which means an increase of about $1,000 from a starting point of about $6,300) and do the same for student support services too. Let's further commit to no tuition increases, and assume no increase in state or local revenues either. We can do ALL that and still have no budget gap if we increase student/faculty ratio from 13:1 to 19:1.

What is required to increase student/faculty ratio? Obviously we either enroll more students, retain more students, or reduce the size of the faculty. Here are the two main challenges:

(1) There is a widely held belief that student/faculty ratio is THE measure of quality in higher education, despite an overwhelming dearth of evidence to support that belief. It's no coincidence that rankings systems rely so heavily on that measure--and that all this talk of being competitive seems to set aside any possible changes to the student/faculty ratio. In fact, since the ratio is actually interpreted to mean "commitment to teaching" that effectively precludes any real re-consideration, lest we come across as not committed to education! But come on-- what evidence is there that the number of faculty allocated to students is the best indicator of commitment? How about the number of highly-trained faculty? The amount of professional development offered? The valuation of teaching in tenure decisions? This reeks of a system that responds to the needs of faculty more than students (for more, see my next point). There are alternative ways to measure quality.

(2) Faculty. Faculty at research universities tend to strive for as little student interaction as possible. Yep, I said it. There are some exceptions, but generally we spend our time vying for smaller classes and less advising. Could we learn to teach bigger classes and do it well? Could we be required to do so at least semi-regularly? Could the advising load for undergrads be spread across a wider range of faculty (including those in departments that don't teach undergrads)? Sure. But you'll face resistance.

So let's stop pretending that there's only one way to skin this cat. We don't have to break from UW System, hike tuition, and/or become semi-private in order to solve our fiscal crisis. We have to have tough conversations about the best ways to deliver higher education in the 21st Century. Sure, that's a tall order-- but it's one that the smart communities of Wisconsin's public universities can no doubt handle.

More Hard Conversations We Need to Have

As we think about ways to cope with proposed cuts to the UW System budget, here are a few more facts to ponder:

1. Costs-per-student are remarkably unequal throughout Wisconsin public higher education.

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, "The cost per student calculation is based on standard accounting procedures that identify direct and indirect student-related costs funded by GPR and student fees. The calculation includes the direct costs of instruction, student services, and academic support. Other activity costs, such as physical plant, institutional support, and fringe benefits, are included in the cost per student calculation with the costs allocated based on the teaching mission's share of those costs. In those instances where a faculty or staff member performs research as part of his or her educational responsibilities, only those costs directly related to instruction are included in the cost pool for setting tuition."

The disparities by universities are nothing short of enormous: "Systemwide, the average instructional cost per undergraduate student is $9,910. The cost of educating an undergraduate student ranges from $8,289 at La Crosse and Whitewater to $12,747 at Madison, a difference of more than 50%." Overall, there is a variance of 42% in instructional costs across campuses!

Moreover, there are enormous disparities in the proportion of their instructional costs students and their families are being asked to cover: "Students at the campuses where instructional costs are the lowest, such as Whitewater, La Crosse, and Oshkosh, are paying a greater share of their educational costs than students at campuses with the highest instructional costs, including Superior and Parkside. For example, while upper level (Junior/Senior) students at Parkside paid 36% of the cost of their education, lower level (Freshmen/Sophomore) students at La Crosse paid 90%."

Here is the real kicker: "Despite paying a higher amount of tuition, students at UW-Madison pay a lower percentage of their instructional costs than the average for students at the comprehensive campuses. By contrast, students at Milwaukee pay a greater share of their instructional costs than students at the comprehensive campuses. This is due to both lower than average instructional costs and the tuition premium students pay for attending a doctoral institution."

Students at UW-Madison are from wealthier families compared to students at the other institutions, and enter with higher test scores-- so why is it that they cost more to educate and chip in a smaller share of those costs????

2. We have two different types of two year colleges-- the UW Colleges (branch campuses of the 4-year universities) and the Wisconsin Technical College System. In some parts of the state, a UW College and a technical college exist within a mile of one another! Many students have no idea what the difference is between these schools. The UW College students benefit from established articulation agreements within the UW System, while the technical colleges are constrained to only having transfer as an explicit mission at a very few campuses. Why is this? Who benefits?

The analysis by the LFB reveals that the UW Colleges spend more per student than most of the universities spend on their freshman and sophomores. Those freshman and sophomores also contribute a lower percentage of their instructional costs. Why is this? Are the retention rates higher at UW Colleges than at universities? In other words, is this higher spending cost-effective?

This are tough questions and these difficult times demand answers. In a recent paper Doug Harris and I argued for a new approach to considering how scarce resources in higher education should be spent. The data needed to estimate the effects of different strategies (including number of campuses, spending, program coordination etc) should be made available so that the public and the administrations can begin to consider costs relative to effects.

Pick Your Poison

This is a strange new horrible world we live in. I have no idea what happen to democracy, but it's clearly left the station.

So, let me try to apply a little "pragmatic idealism" to the current moment regarding the New Badger Partnership. Today the UW System put the WIP on the table-- the Wisconsin Idea Partnership. It looks a lot like the NBP except it's for the whole System and it comes with real performance accountability measures. That means the most horrific part of the NBP--the splintering of System into a million selfish little pieces-- goes away. That's good-- that split wasn't Biddy's idea, it was Walker's-- and so it's something we ought to be awfully suspicious about.

That doesn't mean the WIP is great, or even good. The question is whether it's better than the alternatives.

I think the NBP is untenable. Even if it currently includes Chapter 37, it may not when the day is finally done. You simply can't trust this guy. It sets Madison up to be hated even more than it already is by the rest of the state, and it will come with great costs to equity--if not diversity.

So here are what I see as the best alternatives to supporting the NBP right now:

(1) Fight both the NBP and the WIP in the name of protecting public higher education--meaning holding the state accountable for paying its share, and doing everything we can to keep corporate interests at bay. In the short term this means taking a godawful cut and working really hard across institutions to find efficiency gains, which could involve, for example, closing an entire campus. I'm not saying I want that to happen but it might be one of the only viable ways to go.

(2) Support the WIP and work hard to ensure that it includes the following elements: (1) One board. Not 13. 13 is insane, and if Walker appoints 11 people on each of 13 boards, lord help us. If it's a 21 person board, and the governor gets 11, make sure that of our 10 ALL of them have vested interests in the INSTRUCTIONAL FUNCTION of Wisconsin higher education-- not the research or corporate functions. (2) Maintain tuition setting authority with that board-- do not give each campus tuition flexibility. They can have flexibility in procurement, compensation and construction, but tuition setting needs to be done by a coordinating body that has the interests of ALL STUDENTS at heart. Individual institutions do not-- they protect their own.

I'm inclined to support the WIP as I've described it above. I remain deeply worried about the invasion of corporate interests and I am scared to death of a board with a majority appointed by Walker, and I understand that Chapter 37 could be revoked from WIP as well. But I hear unanimous support from all sides for the need for flexibilities, and at some point even us idealists have to be pragmatic. I want the System to work together on its common educational mission.

I'm still thinking this through, as I'm sure you all are too. I want to hear your thoughts. Please share.

Taking Democracy For Granted

When citizens take democracy for granted, Wisconsin happens.

The current Republican leadership of this state -- who a majority of the people elected, sad to say -- is not worthy of a banana republic, let alone a state with a progressive reputation. If any one of them had any pride, he or she would stand up and say "This is wrong!" or even resign. But they are cowards and cheaters, the lot of them. They have trampled upon democracy, poisoned the idea of public service and brought shame upon the state of Wisconsin. Tonight, it isn't just about what they did, but how they went about doing it ... secretly, furtively, in violation of the state's public meeting laws.

Governor Walker "praised" the move, which tells you all you need to know. So, apparently, killing collective bargaining wasn't so intrinsically related to balancing the state budget after all, now was it?

This is NOT what democracy looks like!

Media Coverage:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Wisconsin State Journal
Slate
MSNBC
Crooked Timber

Statute:
Wisconsin Open Meetings Law

"Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting."

Photo credit: Jeff Pertl

Sunshine on Salaries

Ah, the joys of being a state employee -- our salary info is readily available to the public! Despite the UW System's efforts to keep that information quiet (salaries are very low, making it easy for other universities to lure us away), the Wisconsin State Journal put it online to ensure transparency. Here are some interesting tidbits:

• 9 of the 10 best-paid employees in the UW System are men
• 5 of the top 12 best-paid employees in the UW System are in athletic departments. Director Barry Alvarez earns $500,000 a year-- $85,000 more than Kevin Reilly (System president) and $63,000 more than Biddy Martin (UW-Madison chancellor). An assistant football coach earns five times more than yours truly.
  
• The deans of Madison's law and business schools outearn the deans of letters & science and education by approximately 25%.
• The chair of economics at UW-Madison earns nearly 2.5 times what the chair of economics at UW-Milwaukee earns.

I'm sure you can find more-- have at it!

Sad Day for UW Colleges

The Cap Times is reporting the summertime departure of UW Colleges and Extension leader David Wilson. My frank response: this sucks.

Wilson is one of the good ones. Very bright, forward-thinking, not afraid to speak his mind. I should know-- recently I gave a radio interview and made a few statements about the UW Colleges he didn't like. His response? To invite me to participate in a conference call with all of his deans, and then inform me that the purpose was to "educate" me a bit about his institutions and all they do. Needless to say, I was a bit taken aback-- but by the end of the call, nothing but grateful. I had learned quite a bit, and if he'd been more forthcoming about the call's purpose I might not've participated. He's a smart man.

I've often thought that Wilson's leadership held promise for helping Wisconsin rethink the work of all of its two-year colleges, and that he could lead the way in some kind of...ummm...merger (whispered voice) that would be productive rather than destructive. Sadly, I suspect such an opportunity's been set back by this news. (I suspect others are now happy, but I'm just sad.)

So, shucks, darn it-- big loss.

Wilson will become president of Morgan State University in Baltimore, starting July 10. The Baltimore Sun is reporting his arrival there.

UPDATE: Budget Balancing For Dummies

The Wisconsin State Journal has the update on this recent blog post ("Budget Balancing For Dummies").

Almost all state workers will have to take furloughs, regardless of whether their paychecks come from the state, federal grants, or private sources, under versions of the budget passed by both the state Assembly and Senate.

Some state workers paid with federal grants, particularly university researchers, argued they shouldn’t have to take the 16 unpaid days off as mandated by Gov. Doyle over the next two years because it wouldn’t save the state money.

An amendment proposed by Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison, that would have shielded some of those employees from taking furloughs never made it into the Assembly's budget.

No one proposed a similar amendment in the Senate, making it unlikely that it will be inserted in conference committee, which reconciles the budgets passed by the two houses.

Seems to me that this brain-dead policy choice is completely counter to economic stimulation. By unnecessarily reducing workers' paychecks through a policy that saves the state of Wisconsin $0, how much will the state lose in income tax revenue, retail sales taxes, and the like as a result of this policy aimed solely at 'feel good' public relations?

Also, treating non-state-funded university faculty and staff in this way sorta flies in the face of the retention fund aimed at keeping high-demand faculty in Wisconsin. At best, it's going to create a run on this fund - by slapping UW faculty and staff with the furlough, plus the rescinded salary increases over the next two years. That's money out of the state's pocket.

What was it that Forrest Gump said?

Budget Balancing for Dummies

I hate to pick on my state of residence, but sometimes it's just too easy and too well deserved.

A proposal in Wisconsin suggests that state policymakers may be prioritizing the appearance of belt tightening over the enactment of meaningful savings. To close a $6.5 billion deficit, the governor and legislature will require that all state and university employees be furloughed regardless of whether their positions are actually funded with state dollars. It's a proposal that attends to a 'Keep It Simple, Stupid' view of budgetary public relations rather than striving for intelligent budgeting. The furlough as enacted enables politicians to blather blindly that "everyone is sacrificing, doing their part, tightening their belt, blah, blah, blah," even if it won't save Wisconsin one red cent--and could actually cost it money. In fact, the furlough could actually serve as an anti-stimulus. It would pull money out of the state economy by forcing employees funded through federal and private grants to not spend those dollars at a time the state desperately needs such an influx.

Erica Perez of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports:

Facing state-mandated furloughs, University of Wisconsin System employees are struggling with how to handle unpaid days off in an academic environment.

Professors and instructors aren't sure if they will have to cancel classes. And many argue that a break from federally funded research does nothing to help the state budget.

To help close the state budget gap, lawmakers recently approved Gov. Jim Doyle's plan to require all state employees - including those represented by unions - to take 16 unpaid furlough days over the next two years, the equivalent of a 3% pay cut.

They also rescinded a 2% pay increase that was to take effect this month. That freeze affects state employees not represented by unions, including 19,500 faculty, academic staff members and senior executives in the UW System.

Then there are the university employees whose salaries aren't paid with state money. Thousands of UW employees are paid partially or fully with non-state sources of revenue. For instance, many researchers have won federal grant money that helps pay their salaries. Other staffers, such as for a pre-college program, are federally funded.

They have to take furloughs and the corresponding pay cut even though the state has assured UW officials that the non-state funded parts of the unpaid salaries, such as federal grant money, would not be taken away, [UW System spokesman David] Giroux said.

"What the researchers are pointing out is that not only does that not help the state financially, it actually hurts the state," UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin told regents last week.

Where seasoned leadership lets us down, a savvy, first-term legislator, Rep. Kilda Helen Roys, injects some common sense into the budget process. (As a Madison area legislator, she undoubtedly also represents large numbers of state and UW System employees, making her proposal good politics as well.)

Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison) issued the following statement on her proposed amendment to the state budget, a motion that would only furlough state employees if doing so would result in a net savings to the state:

"A blanket furlough of all state workers may, in some cases, actually end up increasing the cost to state taxpayers.

Some examples of this include workers whose furlough times will need to be staffed by other workers at overtime pay rates (time and a half or more), workers whose positions are funded by federal or non-GPR dollars, and workers whose positions bring money into the state through matching funds based on the hours they work, like university researchers.

Part of this is making sure that state employee furloughs actually save taxpayer money. My amendment ensures that furloughs for state workers will be implemented strategically, at a savings to the state. "

Here's more from the Wisconsin State Journal.

My prediction: PR will triumph over common sense. But, stay tuned.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I've been thinking a lot about how the citizens of some states view their public universities, and in particular the people who work there. In a week I'll begin a trip around Wisconsin on a bus, with a group of UW faculty, staff, and administrators (included Chancellor Biddy), as part of the "Wisconsin Idea Seminar." I really have two personal goals for this trip-- first, to get a clue about where my students grew up and what those places look and feel like, and second, to hear how citizens around the state think about the UW.

I have to admit- I'm a bit nervous. Having listened to political scientist Kathy Cramer Walsh talk about her research in towns statewide, where she found quite a bit of animosity, partly related to claims of unfair admissions practices and ivory tower elitism, and having recently experienced the wrath of anonymous commentators on online websites who mistake my interest in protecting the kids from poor families for a belief that they are stupid-- well, I'm going in quite concerned.

Then there's this New York Times piece that says that traditional town/gown divides are heating up during the recession. I know something about these, having attended both George Washington University (famous for taking over Foggy Bottom) and the University of Pennsylvania (famous for creating bourgeois schools and coffee houses across West Philly). In contrast, Madison seems quite friendly. But in so many places college students are shunned from local neighborhoods, and their activities said to blight the town. Well, in some ways that's right on. Adolescents on the transition to adulthood probably don't make good neighbors. Bars and pubs don't either. I've watched lots of nice yuppie-fied places get absolutely trashed by students sleeping on couches, spending long hours with a single cup of coffee and a laptop not spending money, etc. But I've also seen the opposite-- empty stores, bored clerks, etc, when the students are gone.

I've got no solution to offer here. I just know one has to be found-- and it probably needs to come from more adults in the state (any state) feeling more a part of the institutions that take their tax dollars. Feeling disenfranchised is crummy, and people respond in kind. I'm not for PR-stunts intended to make colleges think they've done their part and can pat themselves on the back; I'm for trying effective ways to bring more people into the college experience, and helping them to feel that they've got a fair shot. Let's think of some good ways to get that done.

Showing That You Care

Oh how Wisconsin loves its higher education system! Let me count the ways...

1. Today it agreed to pass the responsibility of funding its premier flagship institution (UW-Madison) onto the shoulders of students and families.

2. Yesterday we learned that our promised 2% pay raises (yippee) are no more.

3. Furthermore, all "non-represented" state employees--faculty included-- will have the lovely experience of 8 days without pay during the coming year. This on top of the 2/9 rule that says we can't draw salary for more than 11 out of 12 months!

4. Take a look at how WI is investing its stimulus funds for education. 9 states have had their ARRA applications approved: CA, IL, ME, MN, MS, OR, SD, UT, and WI. Of those 9, 7 plan to spend between 19-38% of those funds on higher education (the most generous are MN and SD). One state, Illinois, plans to throw higher ed 2.4%. And then there's Wisconsin. What, you ask, does Wisconsin intend to do with its stabilization funds for education? 100% will go to k-12.

Hmmmmm......

Finding the Truth

The Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE) has released an "executive memo" to the UW System Board of Regents regarding the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates (MIU). It was expertly crafted by our director Noel Radomski. I'd like to share some of its highlights with you here.

"I have spent several months reviewing the MIU proposal, which has included meeting with Chancellor Martin and her senior cabinet; reviewing creative innovations at other universities and systems; and comparing the initiative’s components with the research on potential benefits and unintended consequences. Based on my findings, I strongly encourage you to refer the proposal to a future meeting so that stakeholders at UW–Madison and the UW System can invest more time and energy in crafting a proposal that truly maintains and enhances the university’s quality and affordability."

Noel then states some important facts-- among them are the following descriptions of our economic situations:

1. Due to a worsening economy and falling tax collections, the Wisconsin budget deficit could add as much as a $1.2 billion to a projected state budget deficit already estimated at nearly $6 billion earlier this year (Wisconsin State Journal, May 6, 2009).

2. Wisconsin’s unemployment rate hit 9.4% in April 2009, surpassing the national rate for the first time since June 2007. The state lost a total of 8,700 non-farm jobs in March and has shed more than 112,000 jobs since March 2008 (Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development).

3. The Wisconsin Poverty Report, published this month by the UW–Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, painted a dismal picture of increasing poverty rates in our state and participation in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

4. In 2006, 20% of Wisconsin residents had incomes in the lowest income quintile compared to only 8.9% of UW–Madison freshmen (University of Wisconsin–Madison).

5. Earlier this week, the Joint Committee on Finance approved an amendment to Governor Jim Doyle’s proposed state budget that shifted Wisconsin Higher Education Grant (WHEG) revenue from the UW System to the Wisconsin Technical College System; as a result, current estimates predict 7,700 UW System students could see their financial aid packages reduced.

He then goes on to make several suggestions, among them:

1. Require all undergraduates to complete a FAFSA before enrolling at UW–Madison, although an “opt out” option can be added for personal and philosophical reasons.

2. For students from families with incomes of $80,000 or less (or some other number), the proposed tuition surcharge should not be assessed (i.e., a waiver rather than a reimbursement). The reason for this suggested change is to reduce administrative complexities and costs, but more importantly, to send the message to hard-working Wisconsin families that they will not have to pay a tuition surcharge in addition to a tuition increase. The suggestion is aimed at reducing “sticker shock” effects, especially for first generation students.

3. The UW–Madison campus should review other state and campus need-based aid programs (publicly and privately financed efforts) that could serve as a model for the design of a uniquely crafted UW–Madison private-public, need-based aid program. WISCAPE has already completed an environmental scan of innovative and effective public and private need-based programs that could be uniquely designed for Wisconsin.

4. UW–Madison should be asked to design and integrate an accountability system into the MIU proposal, which should include benchmarks and indicators so current and prospective students, parents, grandparents, guardians, campus leaders, the UW System Board of Regents, and elected officials can easily access findings and reports illustrating the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposal.

He closes with the following: "Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found" (taken from a report of the Board of Regents in 1894).


Ok-- I think at this point, 'nuff said. It is up to the thoughtful people of the great state of Wisconsin, and their leaders, to bring this one home. Tomorrow (today) I turn my attention to Washington DC and what our national leaders can do to better support our community colleges.

Update: Madison Initiative for Undergraduates

Todd Finkelmeyer at The Capital Times offers this update ("UW-Madison chancellor's proposed tuition hike elicits little pushback") on the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates.

At first glance, a key premise of Chancellor Biddy Martin's undergraduate initiative seems absurd. In an effort to make the University of Wisconsin-Madison "affordable to all," she is proposing a tuition increase.

Yet Martin's Madison Initiative for Undergraduates -- the first major proposal of her eight-month-old tenure -- has met with little organized resistance from students, who, in the past, have howled at any attempt to raise the cost of a college education.

"There is a lack of critical thought and a lack of sifting and winnowing, and I'm not sure why," says Noel Radomski, director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, a higher ed think tank based on campus. "Perhaps it's just a reflection, quite frankly, of the lack of true involvement by faculty, staff and students on significant issues on the Madison campus."

The UW System Board of Regents will vote on the proposal at its meeting later this week.

For background on the Madison Initiative from the Education Optimists, click here.

Why I Voted Against the Madison Initiative, by Guest Blogger Dakota Kaiser

Today we feature a post from an undergraduate student at UW-Madison, Dakota Kaiser. Dakota is a rising senior, and recently distinguished himself as the sole member of the ASM (Associated Students of Madison) to vote against the Chancellor's Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. While many if not all students and faculty can find something to like in the proposal, Dakota has taken a stand for reasons that only he can best articulate. Therefore, today he becomes the first-ever guest blogger on the Education Optimists, here to share his views. Welcome, Dakota!

Why did I vote no? First and foremost, as a student representative on ASM, I could not ethically endorse a tuition increase. As a representative from a rural working class background and a transfer student, I don’t believe my constituency supports this proposal. Higher education is on a path to pricing students out of college every year, and I don’t want Wisconsin to follow the trend. The largest piece of evidence provided for this money is the classic bar graph of funding and financial aid for the big 10. I don’t believe pointing to other schools with high tuition and wanting to fit in is a real argument. Pointing to others actions to justify your own didn’t work on the playground as kids, and it shouldn’t work now. We should take pride in our affordability not be embarrassed and quick to change it. I also question whether or not the BIG 10 is really our peer group. When the average Wisconsin high-school student looks at college choices, it's not between UW-Madison and Penn State, it’s between UW-Madison and other UW schools and community colleges.

While this proposal argues that it will increase economic diversity on campus, I believe it will do just the opposite. Low income, first generation, and other students from disadvantaged communities are likely to suffer from sticker shock when seeing the high tuition on a website, pamphlet or other promotional material. Those students who most need the financial aid that this program is designed to create are those students who will not take it into account when making their post-secondary choices. While the administration just released their report (by no coincidence I’m sure) stating that family income has no impact on acceptance to UW-Madsion, I believe that it does affect who is applying in the first place.

Tuition is the last place a public institution should look to solve its problems, not the first. If the administration has spent a serious amount of time trying other methods to fill the gap and accomplish these same goals and then finally had to turn to tuition, this may be a different story. I also believe that many of the goals and proposals in the initiative can be solved with out such a large increase in funds. More funding doesn’t mean better advising, counseling, or instruction. We have no evidence suggesting that these areas are actually damaged, or that more funding will fix them. All we have are some anecdotal accounts, not solid data. Students were rushed to make a decision on this as it was rolled out, followed by only 6 weeks of an all out marketing, and lobbying blitz, with little time to let these ideas actually settle.

We also have been shown no evidence that changes in the area’s proposed will actually provide a better education, and there are no accountability measures or goals to judge success by. When I asked an administrator about how they will judge success in four years, I was told that they will have more faculty members, more advisers, and more services. When I responded that those are all means to the end of a better education, and asked how they would know that those things are actually making a difference, they had no answer.

In the end I believe that this proposal will not produce the intended results, and may harm our institution. In my opinion the average student doesn’t support this initiative, but they have been given no outlet to speak against it. In the one survey produced by ASM less than 20% of students supported the initiative, while over 80% were neutral or opposed. While the rest of student council was able to ignore that fact, and argue that the educated students were in favor of it and that as time goes on more will be too, I could not.