                 |
|
|
Final Report - September 2006
The times they are a changin’
Much is changing in the higher education environment that encourages policy makers to consider adopting new policies. The increased size, complexity, centrality, and competitiveness of higher education have produced profound changes. The demand and need for higher education has greatly increased enrollment in higher education. Higher education has become central to the economy, to the job placement of students, and to civic life. “Prime-age jobs that require at least some college have increased from 20 percent in 1959 to 56 percent in 1997 (Carnevale and Fry, late 1990s, p.3). But even in the face of this increased importance, most states have decreased funding for higher education, in many cases because other demands on the state budget have squeezed out funding for higher education.
In the 1980s and particularly the 1990s, federal and state governments placed more emphasis on student loans, thus switching funding of higher education from government to students. According to a recent report by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), all states face potential budget deficits at least through the year 2013 (Jones, 2006). This constricts the amount of money available for higher education, as well as other services. Even when economic conditions improve, other services, such as Medicaid and K-12 education, often take precedence over higher education. This reduction in funding has switched support for higher education from government sources to more reliance on students and their families, as seen in higher tuition and more student loans.
Higher education exists in an ever increasing competitive arena in which the market prevails. Technology has exponentially changed how higher education is delivered and the information that is available. Some even fear that the United States is losing its preeminent place in the world of education. For example, the U.S. ranks 17th in the world in high school graduation rates with only 74% of high school students graduating. Further, in 2001, the U.S. ranked 15th in college participation, falling from 2nd in 1991(Minnesota Private College Research Foundation, 2006). Many countries have begun major higher education initiatives in the last decade, and many are attracting students from countries other than their own to their higher education institutions.
All of these changes bring about the need for new policies. Many would contend that higher education is not keeping up. What then should be the policies for public higher education governance, funding, access and persistence of students?
Governance is the formal arrangement put in place for making and administering policy. The governance structure determines what is done, by whom it is done, and how it is done. States have adopted a variety of governance arrangements that define the ways in which they interact with higher education. In fact, it is safe to say that every state is different in this regard, although similarities are prevalent. In almost all cases multiple layers exist usually comprised of higher education institutions, the state legislature, and the executive branch in the form of a statewide intermediary agency. The legislative role is to put in place the legal structure in which higher education and its attendant parts function.
Higher Education Institution Types
Constitutions and/or statutes establish the framework for higher education. Through constitutions and statutes, states choose to allow higher education institutions to be established as constitutional or statutory organizations, as corporations, public corporations, public enterprises, authorities, or charter, compact, or contract institutions.
Constitutional and Statutory Institution
The Universities of California, Colorado, Michigan, and most recently Hawaii, are examples of constitutionally established institutions. Constitutionally established higher education institutions have retained more autonomy, at least theoretically, than have statutorily established institutions (MacTaggart and Associates, 1998).
Public higher education institutions authorized by statute tend to be more tightly coupled to government than are constitutionally authorized public institutions. They must make their case more frequently before the state legislature and enjoy only those freedoms granted them (Moos and Rourke, 1959). Theoretically statutory institutions are more vulnerable to intrusion than are constitutional institutions. All the public institutions in Colorado are statutory with the noted exception of the University of Colorado system established in the state constitution.
Corporations
A corporation is “a group of people legally authorized to act as if it were a single individual” (McLean, 1996, p. 112). The ability to establish corporations is authorized by the state. Overseen by an appointed or elected board of directors, the corporate form provides for a great deal of autonomy. While the corporate structure is usually associated with the business world, independent higher education institutions and propriety (for-profit) institutions also have corporate status. These institutions have more independence and autonomy than their public counterparts. Colorado College, Regis University, the University of Denver, and Colorado Christian University are examples of non-profit corporations.
Public Corporations, Public Enterprises, and Authorities
Public corporations, public enterprises, and authorities are forms of publicly-owned entities that are fairly loosely associated with government. They are given a substantial amount of legal authority to manage the entity’s affairs, yet they are still a part of government. For public corporations, enterprises, and authorities, power is vested in a board that oversees the internal business of the entity. These types of entities are established for a variety of reasons: to gain revenue for the organization itself, to carry out an ideological program, to win or retain votes, to address government failure (Hood, 1994), and to allow for more flexibility. Colorado public higher education institutions have recently been granted limited “enterprise status” legislatively. (See Appendix A, Definitions)
Charter, Compact, or Contract Institutions
The term “charter” is more often heard when speaking of elementary and secondary education. While still a public school, a charter school operates outside the usual restrictions. It still receives funding from public sources and charter schools are still held accountable for results. Some higher education officials are exploring using the concept for higher education.
Charter colleges are given greater freedom to act as they see fit. They are given the ability to set their own tuition rates, to control personnel policies, to make their own purchases, construct their own buildings, and to raise private money more aggressively. In return they agree to meet certain performance standards.
In 2001, the Colorado General Assembly, through legislation, established the Colorado School of Mines as a “performance contract” institution, a designation similar to charter institution. Now all Colorado public higher education institutions and some independent institutions have performance contracts. The independent institutions that may establish performance contracts with the state are Colorado College, Regis University, and the University of Denver. As of 2005, Regis University and the University of Denver have signed performance contracts. Colorado College was still negotiating the wording of their contract. In addition, Colorado Christian University has filed a legal action against the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, the goal of which is inclusion in the stipend program. If Colorado Christian should prevail, they too would be required to enter into a performance contract. (College Opportunity Fund)
Public Higher Education Organization
System Boards
In some states higher education institutions are governed based on the mission or type of institution. For example, all community colleges, all four-year colleges, and all graduate institutions come under their own system boards. Each system board is authorized to oversee the activities of several institutions generally having the same role and mission. A collection of institutions is governed by one board.
Institution or Local Boards
In some states public institutions may maintain their own board of trustees. Most frequently in the public sector these institutional boards form another layer of governance or policy-making following behind the state legislature, executive branch, and the statewide higher education intermediary agencies and in some cases system boards. Occasionally these boards are autonomous, having “full authority over a single institution and do not operate under the overall authority of a consolidated governing board or multi-campus system” (Education Commission of the States, 1994, p. 3). Where their powers are limited, trustees of local boards generally select the president, set institutional policy, conduct evaluations, and maintain relationships between the institution and external constituents (Hines, 1988). In any case, these boards work closely with the institutions they oversee and are more concerned about the needs of a specific institution. Generally comprised of prominent citizens, these boards assist institutions in raising resources and carrying out their roles and missions.
Ways of Organizing
A way of describing the overall possible higher education systems in states is: (1) the tiered system where states group institutions together under multiple boards based on mission, (2) the one board system where all public institutions in a state are placed under a single board, (3) the campus board system where each institutions has its own governing board and the state generally has a coordinating agency, and (4) the combination system which can include any parts of the other three. Colorado has a combination of system boards and local, institution boards that fall under the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, a statewide higher education intermediary agency. (See Appendix D, Department of Higher Education)
Statewide Higher Education Intermediary Agencies
Over time, states have chosen various ways of governing and coordinating their public higher education institutions. Among the structures put in place by almost all states is some form of a statewide higher education intermediary agency. The 1994 Education Commission of the States Postsecondary Education Structures Handbook categorizes these agencies as (1) governing boards, (2) coordinating boards, which include regulatory coordinating boards and advisory coordinating boards, and (3) planning agencies. Planning agency states “are states with essentially no coordinating authority delegated to a statutory entity that extends much beyond a voluntary planning and convening role and ensuring good communications among institutions and sectors” (Education Commission of the States, 1994, p. 7). Twenty-four states had consolidated governing boards. Twenty-four states had coordinating boards (21 regulatory and 3 advisory), and two states had planning agencies (Education Commission of the States, 1997). The form in Colorado most closely resembles the regulatory coordinating board description.
Statewide agencies have four major responsibilities. They are: (1) leadership and coordination, (2) approval of institutional objectives, (3) appraisal and evaluation of institutional achievement of approved objectives, and (4) advice to individual institutions. Other responsibilities can include: defining the role and mission of institutions; creating a vision; planning; budgeting; setting admission standards; establishing enrollment quotas; setting tuition; approving academic programs; reviewing programs; eliminating academic programs; allocating programs among institutions; determining general policies and practices; promulgating regulations; setting priorities, policy, and standards; supporting presidential leadership; licensing; administering programs such as student financial aid (Ketter, 1975; Millett, 1981; Fisher, 1984; Hollander, 1994); and advocating for various stakeholders. These agencies can also be players in policy innovation. Statewide higher education bodies are considered, in general, to be responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of higher education (Ketter, 1975; Hollander, 1994).
State governments find statewide higher education intermediary agencies valuable because they can relieve some of the pressure often directed toward government, handle some of the difficult situations concerning higher education, and reduce friction. The agencies can take responsibility for the following: reducing program duplication, reducing duplication of missions, deciding on the location for institutions, ensuring access, ensuring quality, forcing desirable mergers, reducing competition among institutions for students and funding, facilitating transfers among institutions, lessening conflicts, providing more effective use of education dollars, economizing, managing enrollments, ensuring against harmful standardization, balancing institutional demands, and preventing dominance of one type of institution over another (Glenny, 1959; Millett, 1981; Education Commission of the States, 1994; Huisman and Morphew, 1996; MacTaggart and Associates, 1996; Marcus, 1997). As indicated above based on different structures in the states, the responsibilities and influence of these agencies vary from state to state.
Statewide higher education intermediary agencies also serve a somewhat intangible though very important function. Often these statewide agencies find themselves in the position of intermediary between higher education and government, and even as apologists for both.
In general, the statewide agencies have a great deal of influence over higher education. They carry out the mandates of the legislative and executive branches and relay messages back to those two branches of government from the higher education institutions. These statewide intermediary agencies are seen as bodies that could curtail higher education operations, eliminate duplication and overlap, keep institutions from expanding their missions unnecessarily, provide master planning, provide for more efficiency and economy, ensure the proper use of resources, provide for more fairness among institutions, address expanding needs of citizens and the state, and act as apologist for higher education and the state.
State coordination was designed originally as a buffer, or intermediary, between the academy and the politicians. It is now predominantly an instrument of public policy and the politicians. “. . . How did we go from the protectors of autonomy to the intrusive and interventionist agencies that many of us are today? I think this happened because neither the politicians nor the institutions wanted us standing in the middle. Rather, they wanted us taking sides: accountability from the politicians, and advocacy from the institutions (Mingle, 2000, p. 3). In Colorado, it appears the side most frequently taken is that of the politicians with the emphasis on accountability.
Colorado’s Public Higher Education Structure
The University of Colorado and its component parts are established under the constitution of the state. There are, however, in statute many provisions that control the activities of the University. State statute provisions outline the authority of all the other governing boards in the state. Higher education institutions in Colorado generally have individual governing boards, but system governing boards also exist. These include the University of Colorado system (three institutions), the Colorado State University system (two institutions), and the Community College system (thirteen institutions).
State statute establishes the boards of trustees and grants governing board authority to each public institution or system of public institutions. For example, the board of the University of Northern Colorado is composed of nine members and is described as a governing board. It is a corporate body and has the powers associated with such a designation. Seven of the nine members of the board are appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate. One member is a student representative and another member is from the faculty. The number of board members and specific designations can differ among governing boards.
Some specific powers of the governing boards are:
• Acquire and hold property
• Be a party to all suits and contracts
• Demand, receive, hold, and use money, lands, or other property
• Make bylaws and regulations
• Elect the officers of the board
• Appoint a president
• Appoint other executive officers, faculty, and employees
• Set compensation of president, executive officers, faculty, and professional staff
• Prescribe degree programs with advice of faculty
• Prescribe student admissions qualifications
The CCHE is authorized in state statue, Title 23 Higher Education and Vocational Training. The law, originally enacted in 1965, concerning higher education was reenacted in 1985. The legislative declaration states the purposes of the article. They are: to maximize opportunities for postsecondary education in Colorado; to avoid and to eliminate needless duplication of facilities and programs in state-supported institutions of higher education; to achieve simplicity of state administrative procedures pertaining to higher education; to effect the best utilization of available resources so as to achieve an adequate level of higher education in the most economic manner; to accommodate state priorities and the needs of individual students through implementation of a statewide enrollment plan; and to continue to recognize the constitutional and statutory responsibilities of duly constituted governing boards of state-supported institutions of higher education in Colorado.
In this article, express powers and duties are delegated to a central policy and coordinating board, the CCHE. The ultimate authority and responsibility is expressly reserved to the General Assembly, and it is the duty of the CCHE to implement the policies of the general assembly.
The article applies to all state-supported institutions of higher education, including, but not limited to, all postsecondary institutions in the state supported in whole or part by state funds, and including junior colleges and community colleges, extension programs of the state-supported universities and colleges, local district colleges, and area vocational schools and specifically the regents of the University of Colorado and the institutions it governs. The governing boards and institutions of the public system of higher education in Colorado, including the University of Colorado, are obligated to conform to the policies set by the commission within the authorities delegated to it in this article.
The CCHE is composed of eleven members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. The members should have knowledge of and be interested in higher education. They serve for four years with the possibility of being reappointed one time only. There are restrictions concerning affiliation with institutions and the Colorado General Assembly. No more than six members of the commission can be from one major political party and there must be at least one member from each congressional district and at least one member from west of the continental divide. Commissioners receive $75 for attendance at meetings plus actual and necessary expenses. See Appendix B for further duties of the Commission, and Appendix E, Decentralized System, Pro and Con.
* * * * *
PART II - FINANCING
Introduction
A variety of funding streams support higher education. Historically, for public institutions, the main source of funding was the state government. For private institutions the main source is tuition from students and/or their families. But all types of institutions, public, private, and proprietary, rely on basically the same sources, with the percentage from each source varying. Those funding streams include government, parents and students, employers, endowments, private sources, auxiliary enterprises, and miscellaneous.
The federal government provides support mainly in the form of financial aid for students and specialized grants for research and some programs such as teaching and student access. Several tax credits have been passed recently that also help in keeping down the costs of higher education for some families and students. The main pieces of federal legislation that have developed support for state higher education institutions are Morrill Act of 1892, Servicemen’s Adjustment Act of 1944 (G.I. Bill), and the Higher Education Act of 1965 along with several reauthorizations.
States are looked to by their public institutions and in some isolated cases by their private institutions, to fund general operations and construction. The main source of funding for public institutions has been the state. A small amount of funding for some institutions may come from local government as well. Students and parents pay tuition. Most states attempt to keep tuition low, but as state support has eroded, tuitions have increased dramatically. Nearly all institutions solicit contributions from their alumni and other supporters. For major research institutions, particularly, millions of dollars can be acquired each year through research grants.
States have used four basic funding approaches with their higher education institutions. First is the corporate approach where each campus has independent status and relative freedom of action. Second is the state-aided approach. A campus still has a great deal of freedom, but funding is controlled through the state budgeting process. In the third type, state-controlled, the state becomes more heavily involved, controlling much of the internal affairs of institutions either directly or indirectly, as well as financial affairs. In the fourth type, where institutions are considered to be state agencies, they have almost no latitude to function on their own (Hines, 1988). For the most part, it is probably fair to say that Colorado follows the state-aided approach.
Private institutions rely primarily on tuition. These institutions also rely on contributions and endowments for additional support. Even for these institutions, a substantial amount of support comes from sources other than tuition. In general, across the country, a student at a private institution paying the full tuition still pays only 80% of the actual costs. Most of these institutions also receive government support from both the federal and state levels, mostly in the form of student financial aid.
State Appropriations
Higher education is often expected to balance the budget. It is the largest discretionary part of a state budget. This is true across the country, and we often see the erosion of higher education budgets during times of economic stress. There are no mandates that require a certain level of funding for higher education. Although the federal government requires state-supported K-12 education for all, it does not impose mandates for higher education. In Colorado there is no constitutional amendment requiring a certain level of funding for Higher Education as is the case of K-12 education (Amendment 23). Thus, when times are tough, higher education becomes the place where budget-makers cut expenses.
Between fiscal years 2000-01 and 2004-05, the overall Colorado budget for higher education fell 21.3%. However, the state funding per resident student dropped 35%. The 21.3% includes tuition; the 35% does not. The 35% drop represents only the state subsidy per student. Tuition has been increased to some extent but not enough to make up for the lost state revenue.
Average Annual State Funding per Resident (in-state) College Student
2001-02
2004-05
% Change
State Average
$5,365
$3,511
-35%
Colorado State University
$6,983
$4,840
-30%
University of Colorado
$7,204
$4,310
-40%
Colorado School of Mines
$8,599
$6,464
-25%
University of Northern Colorado
$4,769
$3,422
-28%
Community Colleges
$3,565
$2,306
-35%
(The Bell Policy Center, 2005, p.2)
Comparison of Instate, Undergraduate Student and State
Contributions to Universities Across the Country in 2004-05
Student
State
Total
University of Michigan $8,722 $16,607 $25,329 University of Arizona
$4,098
$15,996
$20,094
Iowa State University
$5,426
$13,163
$18,589
University of Nebraska
$5,268
$12,360
$17,628
University of Washington
$5,286
$12,041
$17,327
University of Missouri
$7,100
$ 9,627
$16,727
Ohio State University
$7,542
$ 8,746
$16,288
University of Kansas
$4,737
$ 8,020
$12,757
University of Oregon
$5,485
$ 4,567
$10,052
University of Colorado
$4,341
$ 3,134
$ 7,475
(The Denver Post, n.d.)
Often higher education demand is counter cyclical to funding availability. That is, during times of economic downturn, people often return to education to upgrade their skills and prepare for the future. When budgets are tight, more is demanded of higher education. Higher education funding is not only counter cyclical to demand, but also unstable.
In November 2005, the voters of Colorado passed Referendum C, which allowed the state to retain and spend additional money in three areas: higher education, K-12 education, and health. This provided the state legislature the opportunity to increase funding for higher education through supplemental appropriations in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget and by increases in funding in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget. This additional funding has allowed the state to increase the College Opportunity Fund stipend by $180 per year per full-time student attending public institutions for a total of $2,580 (also $90 per full-student per year at participating private colleges for a total of $1,290), to fund the “unfunded enrollment” (See the section “Enrollment” for a discussion of unfunded enrollment.), and to return to funding some capital improvements and deferred maintenance. Still, even with these increases, “Colorado currently spends about $3,360 per student, third from the last in the nation” (The Denver Post, 2006, p. 4E).
Tax Effort
Colorado is a wealthy state ranking at the top of the average family income category. However, the tax effort for higher education (and other services as well) is low. In 2005-06, the state ranking on state tax appropriation for higher education per capita, and per $1000 of personal income was 48th and 49th respectively (Grapevine, 2006).
College Opportunity Fund (COF)
Colorado is the first and only state in the country to move to a stipend (some would say “voucher”) system for funding higher education. In May, 2004, the Colorado General Assembly established a new way for the state to provide state tax dollar support for higher education at the undergraduate level. The state no longer appropriates all higher education monies to institutions for undergraduate education, but allocates funding through the "College Opportunity Fund" or "COF." To be eligible, in-state undergraduate student must apply for the “COF” stipend. COF is not a loan, nor is it financial aid. In school year 2005-2006 it amounted to $2,400 per student. The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights or TABOR, a constitutional amendment passed in 1992, is the main reason for the change. The student stipend is not new money, but rather represents a portion of the money available previously through direct funding to institutions. The stipend provides a different form of funding. Following are the details regarding the COF.
- In-state undergraduate students attending public institutions are eligible for “stipends.” Age, income, and financial aid eligibility are irrelevant.
- Students attending certain private colleges are also eligible. These students must be Colorado residents, graduates of a Colorado high school, and eligible for the federal Pell grant, a grant that goes to the lowest income students. At the present time, only Regis University and the University of Denver students are eligible to participate. Colorado College has chosen not to.
- The student's share of the cost for undergraduate education is not expected to decrease from the rates set prior to the “stipends” being instituted. Both tuition rates and COF “stipend” values may change from year to year.
- Upon authorization the “stipends” are sent by the state on the students’ behalf directly to the institution they choose to attend. The “stipend” is applied directly to the total tuition charged to the students’ account. The “stipend” amount is not mailed to the student’s home or transferred to their bank account nor can a student receive a payment for unused stipend amounts.
- COF vouchers are capped at 145 cumulative attempted semester credit hours. After receipt of a bachelor's degree, a person may have 30 more undergraduate hours added to their limits.
- COF is also designed to increase public awareness that the state helps offset the costs of undergraduate education at public colleges and universities.
Additional support goes to the public institutions in the form of “Fee for Service Contracts.” The funding for these contracts is designed to compensate institutions for high cost programs. In most years institutions also get money for capital projects and improvements.
Tuition
The authority for making decisions regarding tuition lies with the higher education governing boards. However, since the passage of TABOR, the legislature and the governor have played a prominent role in the process. The state budget must stay within certain limits. Since cash funds (in this case tuition) go through the budget, it becomes necessary for the legislature to put limits on tuition increases. While there is some ability for institutions to maneuver within the limitations, there is little flexibility in setting tuition rates without affecting the state budgeting process. Since achieving enterprise status, tuition increases have been held to inflation due to the strong desire of the governor to keep tuition increases as low as possible.
When institutional support diminishes, it is not necessarily untoward for tuition and fees to increase. Many of our institutions charge far less in tuition today than most students can afford, even in tough times, and certainly far less than the education is worth to them. The tradeoff between higher price and reduced service is likely well worth the additional price. But if we do raise tuition, state financial aid policy must protect those students from low-income families who simply can’t bear increased costs. (Longanecker, 2002, p. 3
Resident Undergraduate Full-time Academic Year Tuition Only
Rates and Percentage Change
Institution 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Mines
4,940
5,246/6.2%
5,700/8.7%
6,336/11.2%
7,248/14.4%
CU - Boulder
2,614
2,776/6.2%
3,192/15.0%
3,480/9.0%
4,446/27.8%
CU - Denver
2,490
2,752/10.5%
3,028/10.0%
3,300/9.0%
4,032/22.2%
CU - CO Springs
2,490
2,750/10.4%
3,024/10.0%
3,296/9.0%
3,966/20.3%
CSU - Fort Collins
2,502
2,655/6.1%
2,908/9.5%
2,940/1.1%
3,381/15.0%
CSU - Pueblo
1,940
2,060/6.2%
2,289/11.1%
2,524/10.3%
2,903/15.0%
UNC
2,155
2,290/6.3%
2,520/10.0%
2,850/13.1%
3,192/12.0%
Fort Lewis
1,792
1,902/6.1%
2,020/6.2%
2,270/12.4%
2,462/8.5%
Mesa
1,688
1,767/4.7%
1,855/5.0%
2,063/11.2%
2,359/14.3%
Western
1,622
1,698/4.7%
1,783/5.0%
1,980/11.0%
2,352/18.8%
Metro
1,838
1,925/4.7%
2,021/5.0%
2,044/1.1%
2,191/8.9%
Adams
1,636
1,712/4.6%
1,798/5.0%
1,818/1.1%
1,980/8.9%
Community Colleges
1,441
1,510/4.8%
1,585/5.0%
1,603/1.1%
1,746/8.9%
(State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), 2006, p. 10)
Decision makers attempt to keep tuition low and affordable. However, two basic things happen with this approach. First, if the total budget for higher education is low, then quality can suffer. Class size may need to be increased. Course offerings may need to be reduced. Access may need to be restricted. Faculty may look elsewhere for positions. (On the other hand, some would say, a restricted budget can force institutions to become more streamlined and to address antiquated systems.) Second, when tuition is kept low, all students wealthy and poor alike get the same state subsidy. Thus wealthy students that could afford to pay more are supported by tax payer dollars at the same level as poorer students that often cannot even participate in higher education because of the price. A subsidy is given to those that do not need it while those that do are not provided with enough support to participate in the higher education system.
Enrollment
State funding has not kept pace with enrollment growth over the last several years. The Colorado Commission on Higher Education estimates that approximately $74 million in unfunded enrollment exists. This means that since 2001 all the new students that have entered higher education institutions have, in essence, not been funded. Another way to look at this is that the funding has been spread thinly among all students with a reduced amount of financial support per student. Some of this ground was recovered in 2006 with the passage of Referendum C.
Of the 28 public institution campuses, the fall 2005 headcount enrollment figure for all of them was 214,749 (CCHE, 2006). Colorado has a smaller enrollment in the private nonprofit sector than do most states. For Colorado College, Regis University, and the University of Denver, the headcount in fall 2004 was 23,653. There are other nonprofit schools in Colorado. Many of them have smaller enrollments than the three cited above.
Controlled Maintenance Expenses of Higher Education Buildings
The reduction in funding affects all aspects of the budget for public higher education. A study of the effects of recent cuts in the state budget for public higher education upon the maintenance of state property can be found in Appendix C. Without protection by state statutes or the state constitution, allocations for maintenance were reduced to zero in some years.
* * * * *
PART III – ACCESS AND PERSISTENCE
Introduction
It is the responsibility of the community, at the local, State, and National levels, to guarantee that financial barriers do not prevent any able and other wise qualified young person from receiving the opportunity for higher education. There must be developed in this country the widespread realization that money expended for education is the wisest and soundest of investments in the national interest. The democratic community cannot tolerate a society based upon education for the well-to-do alone. (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1947, p. 23)
Notice that this statement was made in 1947 during the Truman administration. Has this vision for America been fulfilled? The answer to this question from many perspectives would have to be a decided “no.” Many people are not gaining access nor are they completing their stated goals of obtaining a certificate and/or degree or even “retooling.” Many low-income people and people from underrepresented groups, particularly, are not even completing high school let alone going on to college.
Can the United States and more specifically Colorado afford for this situation to continue? What are some of the ways that the situation can be addressed? Does our current system of financing higher education provide for access for all those wanting and able to benefit from higher education? Once there does it allow for persistence to completion? Is the funding of higher education adequate enough to allow students to choose among two-year, four-year, and research institutions as well as among public, private, and proprietary institutions in order to achieve their goals and aspirations? Are appropriate programs in place that will smooth the road for those less well prepared to successfully complete a college education?
Why do we even care? First and foremost, it is the right thing to do. Everyone who is able and wishes should be able to pursue a college career at some level. Furthermore, there are many benefits for both society and the individual. People with a college education earn more over their lifetimes and the gap in income between those with less than a college degree and those with a degree is increasing. College educated people participate more fully in the economic benefits of society. They also contribute more to the common good by paying more in taxes and participating more through civic and cultural engagement. People with a college education are less likely to use the welfare system, to end up in jail, or to lack health insurance coverage. And they are more likely to vote. In presidential elections, people with bachelor degrees as a group are about 20% more likely to vote than are high school graduates.
People experience higher education by taking many different routes. Sixty percent of students attend more than one college; 35% attend more than two. Students in high school can take Advanced Placement courses for which they may or may not receive college credit. Dual enrollment (simultaneous enrollment in high school and college) programs are expanding. Some students take classes in higher education institutions
