I’ve attended my classes and done my homework. Now it’s time for my report. So, here’s what I want to do this session for higher education. If you disagree, you’re on notice and you should contact me.
First, to address our biggest challenge – completion – I want to raise standards, assess high schoolers, and fully prepare high schoolers. The details of the plan can be found here.
Second, we need to take care of our valuable personnel. Higher education workers were left out of the Governor’s budget recommendation for a 1% bump. That’s not acceptable. They truly have done more (huge enrollment increases) with less (significant budget cuts).
The thinking, I assume, is that higher ed can raise tuition and find whatever money it needs in the students’ pockets. I disagree. The comparatively low tuition of Utah’s state institutions gives our students a significant advantage. Smart people don’t flippantly give away their advantages.
Part of our problem with completion rates is that too many of our students work part-time. Increased tuition means even more will do so, and even less will complete.The reality is that some of our institutions should raise their tuition (e.g., UofU and USU) and others definitely should not. But, all our valuable personnel should get a bump.
Those 2 items likely will command all the money that higher education might receive this session.
Now, for reform: it is not an oversight that I left out money for “mission-based funding.” I don’t know what the term means. So, I wouldn’t know what to fund.
It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with the concept. I pushed hard for mission-based funding for over a decade, finally telling the Regents 2 years ago that I would move us to mission-based funding with or without them. Last year I passed a bill, even called mission-based funding, that created a skeleton for funding institutions on the basis of excellence, instead of growth. But, much to my frustration, meat has not been hung on those bones. My bad. I thought others might take the lead. We’ll discuss this important issue in committee, and I’ll take the lead this next interim. But, for now, we’d just be funding a concept.
Along with discussing mission-based funding in committee, we need to preserve/improve concurrent enrollment. I’ve discussed that project here.
Those are my big 4: preparation, funding, mission-based funding, and concurrent enrollment. Agree? Silence is assent.
Also, we’re going to discuss accreditation. It is a huge anchor that stifles innovation, efficiencies, and reform. Unfortunately, the reign of the regional accreditation agencies is supreme. But, I’m working on a plan for the states to band together to change that. Stay tuned.
On January 3 I responded to Mr. Urquhart’s January 1 post with a number of questions. While Mr. Urquhart responded to a comment AFTER I had posted mine, I never did receive any reply. If there are no easy answers, then perhaps my questions need to be given some serious attention, or at least it would appear, by Mr. Urquhart’s own standards that he agrees with many of my points: “Silence is assent.”