Concurrent Enrollment Redux

Tom Gregory has a thoughtful response to my earlier post on concurrent enrollment.

A few quibbles:

(1) The distinction between who pays for high school fees waivers (State) and Pell Grants ("college fee waivers," as Tom calls them) (Feds) can't be shrugged off by policymakers; a very likely result of moving the State down the road of higher education fee waivers would be a shift of appropriations from public ed to higher ed, a result I doubt Tom favors.

(2) Either institutions are fully-funded for concurrent enrollment or they are not. UVSC, which provides just under 20% of the concurrent enrollment in the state, subsidizes this effort at about $250,000/year. I'd call that holding the bag. Also, the costs per institution vary because of differences in what the institutions have to do; in some areas (possibly Rich and San Juan) the colleges have to provide the instructors, which costs the institutions more.

Areas of agreement:

(1) Concurrent enrollment is wonderful. It delivers college credits at a great savings, and it gets more kids thinking about college.

(2) We should facilitate higher education opportunities for students who are poor (and, in my opinion, first-generation college students).

My rub is that in much of the discussion about this issue, I see little effort to look for solutions beyond government coffers. I'm not sure the equation being applied works (e.g., some cost = fewer poor kids getting concurrent enrollment credits). If we think the only answer to tough issues is to reach further into government coffers, then, yes, the equation likely is valid. But, who says that's the only option? I was talking with one Washington County resident who said he would gladly pick up the anticipated concurrent enrollment costs of any Washington County student who asked him. Why not at least explore such options?

Take home:

The veto likely will stand. We'll make another run at a solution next year. In the meanwhile, good discussions are going on. I've had several good ones, and have a few more meetings scheduled in the next week. This is the process. Hopefully, it leads to a result that will responsibly promote the best interests and grandest opportunities of our children. As Tom and others point out, with the money that was appropriated, the sky won't fall this year. But, we do need to figure this out, so that this great program can grow.

Candidate Filings

Of the 75 House seats up for grabs, Republicans failed to field a candidate in 1, and Democrats failed to field a candidate in 19.

Vetoes

Gov. Huntsman vetoed 3 bills and a few lines from the budget. The budget lines simply reflect the fact that we pulled the money from the wrong source; we can correct that in a special session. As widely reported elsewhere, the 3 policy bills deal with parental rights, environmental litigation, and concurrent enrollment.

The first 2, no doubt, presented the Governor with difficult choices. On both those bills, I agreed with the intent of the sponsors but, like the Governor, had concerns that the bills addressed the issues in the best way. Ultimately, I concluded they did.

On the third bill, though, I don't understand the controversy. The Governor stated in his veto letter that "this bill would unfairly preclude some students from participating in concurrent enrollment classes." That's not how I read the bill.

The key language of 1 HB 151 reads that colleges can charge:

"partial tuition of up to $30 per credit hour for each concurrent enrollment course for which the student will receive college credit, paid directly to the institution of higher education that offers the credit."

The bill -- as I read it -- doesn't preclude anyone from participating in the classes; it only establishes that, if the student wants to receive the college credit, he might have to pay up to $30 for each credit hour (which is worth much more than that). This makes sense. There is a real cost to the colleges in providing the courses and credits. If the student receiving the credit does not pay for it, someone else will.

Who is that?

If not picked up by the beneficiary of the credit, the cost will be absorbed by the colleges or factored into the tuition of the college students (who did not benefit from the credit in question). To me, this doesn't make sense, especially in a year when higher education already was underfunded.

This past year, I worked with Dixie State College to expand its involvement in concurrent enrollment offerings. They did so -- at great benefit to local high school students and parents and at significant cost to the College. In a very straight-foward and appropriate way, Rep. Dayton's bill places the costs where they belong and, thus, encourages colleges to embrace concurrent enrollment and expand the number of courses offered.

The target audience for a veto override would be the Senate, where 20 votes are needed and only 17 were there for passage.

UPDATE (3/25/06): As I stated, higher education will not expand course offerings without the money. In which case, we all lose. UVSC, for example, has leaned heavily on its students to fund the institution's progress. The State only contributes about 55% of costs at UVSC, and the students pick up the rest. Why should UVSC lean on its students more -- and why should UVSC students be willing to pay more -- so that high school students can get a benefit without paying anything? Answer: they shouldn't, and they won't.

Higher Education

The Tribune editorialized on higher education – correctly identifying a few of the problems but missing the necessary fix.

Things it got right: (1) tuition increases thwart access to higher education and (2) “political urgency” exacerbates Utah’s problem.

What it got wrong: the editorial concludes that the funding problem is caused by smaller institutions offering more degrees.

The State does not waste money on degrees at its smaller colleges. Instead, the State wastes money – and lots of it – by spending two- or three-times as much awarding those very same degrees to many students at the University of Utah without any justification why the taxpayers should pay the extra freight. The only justification for this wasteful practice is that the U is the U. In other words, political urgency: “Yes, we waste a lot of money, but just try and change it.”

The Tribune’s editorial ignores the fact that taxpayers fund students differently at the various institutions. At the top end of the scale, taxpayers pay 2- or 3-times as much to educate a student at the University of Utah than they do to educate a student at other institutions in the system, such as UVSC or Dixie State. In other words, the taxpayer subsidy for each student at the U could fully fund scholarships for two students at Snow College or Salt Lake Community College. Or, that same money could significantly reduce the tuition for 4 students at other colleges. Etc. In other words, students at the U disproportionately claim financial resources that could be spread out among other institutions.

The obvious question, then, should be whether that is the best use of scarce financial resources. Does it make sense to spend $X on one UofU student, when $X could reduce the tuition for 4 students elsewhere in the system? The answer, of course, is that it depends. Many students prove that they deserve the extra investment. Others, not so much.

If I were a parent or student facing a tuition increase at some other institution, I would want to know why a D-student has carte blanche to determine whether the taxpayers should pay extra money for him to attend the U, when that same money could go toward educating him and two or three others elsewhere in the system? Unfortunately, political urgency does not allow meaningful discussion of this topic.

I raised the question 5 years ago, in an appropriations committee, by asked President Machen (U of U) and President Hall (USU) what the acceptance rates were at their institutions. President Machen said that he did not know. President Hall admitted that Utah State’s acceptance rate was 98%. I thanked him, and informed President Machen that the U’s acceptance rate was 97%. Rather than focus on the “academic creep” of smaller colleges progressing, I suggested that we focus on the academic creep of our research institutions acting like community colleges by accepting any applicant with a pulse.

President Machen was fit to be tied. President Hall, however, told me afterwards that our research institutions will never be first-tier, until they start worrying more about attracting the top 5% of students in the nation than they do about attracting the bottom 5% in Utah.

Though it is a topic for another day, it would seem to be important to Utah’s economic development to have a research university that is regarded as a top-100 institution overall. From issues like the tremendous drop-out rates to the broad mix of student abilities hobbling instruction, it would seem that moving our research institutions away from a typically community college open-enrollment approach, would not only better distribute resources within the higher education system but also would improve the quality of our flagship institutions – and with that change, the economic prospects of Utah.

Free Speech

Senator Frist is making a stand for free speech (online). Good for him!