I don’t know what’s going to flummox some of my readers more, the fact that I’m about to endorse a piece of state legislation authored by a couple of Republicans, or the fact that I’m largely agreeing with an editorial in The Seattle Times? [An idea for higher-ed going, going, gone]
Reps. Fred Jarrett (R-Mercer Island) and Skip Priest (R-Federal Way) are struggling to get a hearing on HB 1434, a bill that would inject a long-term perspective towards funding our college and university system. According to the times:
House Bill 1434, and its companion Senate Bill 5868, would establish a framework for funneling new revenue to higher education as the state economy improves.
By 2012, the current higher-education budget of about $1.2 billion would increase by about one-third. The difference would pay for another 30,000 student spots and more state investment in research. While the bill would permit tuition to increase dramatically, it would add in a more aggressive financial-aid component. The bottom line is, no family would pay more than 30 percent of a student’s education cost.
I’m not necessarily convinced about all the specifics, but then, this is a bill, not an initiative, so there is plenty of opportunity for deliberation and compromise. And I’d caution that The Times’ ebullient description of the bill as “THE best, most forward-looking” higher-education proposal, should include the caveat that HB 1434 may be the only forward-looking proposal being actively pitched at the moment.
Still, it’s hard to argue with the bill’s main principles, as outlined in an editorial Rep. Jarrett wrote, and forwarded to me:
HB 1434 has four guiding principles: Any reforms must be based on long-term strategic plan; they must address both the changing needs of today’s students and our economy; they must make higher education more affordable and accessible for all Washingtonians, and, most importantly, they must establish a system of accountability for taxpayers so we can be confident the first three principles will be met.
Yeah, yeah, sure… all that stuff is good. But the part of the proposal that intrigues me most involves the shift of state funding from flat per-slot subsidies to more of a financial aid model. HB 1434 would result in substantially higher tuition, but would provide financial aid grants to assure that total tuition eats up no more than 30% of any family’s income. This is a change I have long supported, indeed, way back on July 17 I wrote:
We need to move away from subsidizing all students equally, towards a means-tested system where tuition approaches market prices, and students receive generous financial aid based on need.
In fact, while I’m quoting myself, I’d like to point out for the umpteenth time that education is our state’s single most important economic engine, and well… you get the economy you pay for:
Just as individuals invest in their own future by attending college, our state invests in our future economy by making college more accessible. Education consumes the single largest chunk of our state and local taxes, so when Tim Eyman talks about eliminating “government waste” this is what he has in mind.
You get what you pay for. If we buy ourselves a second-rate educational system, our children will inherit a second-rate economy.
Reps. Jarrett and Priest should be commended for their forward-looking proposal, and for championing some solutions which likely won’t be greeted with much enthusiasm from either side of the aisle. My hope is that it generates genuine bipartisan dialogue on a higher-education funding crisis that is putting our future economy at risk.
Goldy…If this is a stupid question you can say so and ignore it; I’m on the run and haven’t thought this through, but…..
Would this mean an end to the current subsidy that upper-middle class and higher income families get when one of the kids goes to a state university?
RDC @1,
It would mean less of a subsidy. Part of state higher-ed spending is a flat dollar-per-slot subsidy. Under this bill, the state per-slot subsidy would grow much more slowly than tuition, with more money going to needs-tested financial aid instead. Tuition rates would rise close to market prices, and those who can afford to pay the full price would. But financial aid would subsidize anything above 30% of family income.
Keep in mind that even an upper-middle income family might receive financial aid if they have a number of children in school at one time.
This could alter the private univ. vs public univ. decision for folks with higher incomes, perhaps changing the student mix on campuses of both. This is a very interesting and far-reaching proposal. Goes to show that both parties have representatives in Olympia with ideas worthy of serious debate. More later when I can fully engage the brain. Good post.
the problem is, and I’m sorry to be a nay sayer, but Rosematy McAuliffe will not let it pass. She is way way to partisan. Call her office and ask.
When Sen Don Benton asked her to bring a bill tp a vote by her commitee, she danced around and didn’t do it. She came up with lame excuses.
The bill would protect our children from pedophile teachers in our schools. Similar to the teacher in Enumclaw who raped an 11 year old girl. I guess Rosemary just doesn’t think it’s important enough. I think it is the most crucial issue facing children. I hope you do also.
Wow… this thread has been alive or over 4 hours, and so far only two people have commented other than me. Have I left you all speechless? Could it be that many of my frequent critics live by the motto: “If you can’t say anything unkind, don’t say anything at all” …?
Chardonnay @4,
I haven’t spoken with McAuliffe yet, but I wouldn’t equate a bill from Jarrett and Priest with one authored by Benton. Benton is a wacko, with a terrible record for attending committees, and is deservedly not respected on either side of the aisle. Jarrett and Priest are well respected in both parties.
I read the education proposal, HB 1434, and I hope it gets a hearing. I especially like the fact that it seems practical, allowing tuition to increase (maybe a lot) as a way of paying for improvements, but limiting what any family would have to pay. Education proposals sometimes tell us we can have our graham crackers and eat them, too.
As for the lack of comments, although education is a most important issue for our children, it can be dry as a discussion topic. But if it’ll help get things going, Goldy, you ignorant slut . . .
Goldy, don’t despair. I read a quote not long ago in the NYT, attributed to the Irish playwright and commentator G.B. Shaw. In a debate, he is quoted as saying to his opponent, “Don’t talk to me, sir, of reform. Things are bad enough as they are.”
Whenever a change of some magnitude is suggested, something in our primordial self surfaces immediately to say no, no, never. I suspect that many of the more thoughtful commentors here are resisting that atavistic impulse, because the proposal is not simple, was proposed by Republicans, and is worthy of some time for consideration. Hang in there.
OK..Second question. Quotes in your post talk about tuition rising to market or near market rates. The “intent” information says that tuition will be set at the average of that for peer institutions (I’m not quoting exactly, but I believe correctly). What are peer institutions? If peer institutions are other state university systems, which also heavily subsidize the cost of education, how much rise could be expected in Washington tuitions? Not a great deal, I suspect, if the standard is tuition at other state university systems. Market rate to me means the true cost of education, which is, I think, about three times the amount covered by tuition. I may have missed it, but peer institutions could include a mix of private and public universities, in which case tuition would more closely approximate true market rates. Has anyone read the bill closely enough to know what is meant by peer institutions? I’m having trouble seeing how this is going to raise much money to achieve the desirable goals stated.
RDC @3
“Goes to show that both parties have representatives in Olympia with ideas worthy of serious debate.”
I would hope so. While the majority party (anywhere) could steamroll bills through, I don’t think it is wise to dismiss anything simply based on party affiliation. Too often at any level, a bill/idea goes without notice, or is treated as DOA, simply because it comes from the opposition.
I keep anticipating that at some point not far off in the future some smart people (maybe me? Nah! I said “smart”) will form a third party with teeth. So far, I remain disappointed. Primarily, perhaps, because smart people would hate to fail in a miserable fashion?
Marks @ 9
The cynic in me (don’t we all have a little?) recalls Adlai Stevenson’s remark after one of his defeats by Eisenhower. When consoled with a remark that all the smart people had voted for him, he replied, “Yes, but I needed a majority.” Maybe smart people have formed third parties with teeth, as you put it, but the rest of us failed to follow. More seriously, I remain hopeful. There is a solid block of sensible people in each party.
Okay, went off-track there @9.
Tuition based on means? Unheard of.
One interesting entry: “with 14,000 for workforce training…”
I could not find a definition, but I assume that means trade-based job training? I don’t know what to think on that, since I am making an assumption…
And thanks, RDC…I always worry I am doing something stupid by questioning why we do things the way we do them…
MESSAGE OFF-TOPIC; DELETED BY MODERATOR
MESSAGE OFF-TOPIC; DELETED BY MODERATOR
Oh, hell…g’night…
Ok, Goldy, one more try. Legislators from each party may not be enthusiastic about this proposal because it would result in upper middle class families paying more for the kids education. This is an important base for both parties; usually more so for Republicans but no so much so here. These people contribute to the party coffers. These people vote in large percentages. These people are frequently influential in their communities. Why raise their hackles for something with benefits in the future and a bit on the intangible side, from a current perspective?
Book Burning Nazi Censor!! Where’s the ACLU when you need them??
[MODERATOR’S NOTE: I’ll leave this comment for all to see your rebuttal. I’ve asked you to try to stay on topic, and you have refused. I’m not going to allow you to continue shitting in the sand box. From this point on, your comments will be held for approval.]
RDC @8 & 16,
I’ve asked Rep. Jarrett what is meant by “peer institutions” and haven’t received a reply yet. So I can’t answer if that includes private universities.
Here’s the way I look at it… does anybody here think that our colleges and universities are “good enough” and that we have enough available slots now to meet current and future needs? I think most people would answer “no.” (At least to the second the question.)
Any way you look at it, we’re just not keeping up with population growth and changing economic demands… and increasing capacity means spending more money. So… if we want to keep funding higher-ed the way we’re doing it now, we’re going to have to raise substantially more revenue to pay for it.
By shifting our funding emphasis from a per-slot subsidy to financial aid, we get to expand capacity on fewer state dollars. People who can afford to pay full price for their education will, but those who can’t will get state grants. Essentially, we’re targeting subsidies to those who need them. And by allowing tuition to rise towards market rates, we eliminate some inefficiencies that are currently built into the system (you free market guys should be pleased by that.)
Will this annoy some affluent people who were expecting a cut-rate education? Well, what will annoy them more is to find their child rejected from the UW because there simply aren’t enough spots. And this is already happening. So I don’t look at this as an intangible future benefit… I look at it as starting to solve an immediate problem.
Hey those republicans are not all bad. Sometimes they do come up with good ideas.
Lately I see in the US Congress they even stood up to Bush and joined with the Washington democrats and stopped Bush from doubling the electric rates in Washington. Go Republicans!(well….at least some of the time).
JCH @ 17: Maybe you should become a card carrying member. Of course, if that’s just your sense of humor, spoofing with a bullshit spoofed message, then I guess you should just crawl back under your piece of pumice.
good job goldy
#
MESSAGE OFF-TOPIC; DELETED BY MODERATOR
Comment by JCH— 3/3/05 @ 6:49 pm
Goldy…you should definitly run for Mayor…or maybe Sims seat. You have the drill down pat……..
Goldy @ 18
The bill may bring an unintended consequence. The state schools may find that more of the higher-achieving high school grads opt for private schools when UW tuition rises closer to “market” price.
Most of the private schools, except for the elitest such as Stanford, offer “merit-based” need-blind scholarships to the high achieving kids to effectively recruit them. I assume the UW will not offer “need-blind” scholarships in any great number. These “scholarships” are in effect discounts that are offered to the high achievers. Why would an “affluent” high achiever choose UW or WSU at a higher price than a good private school such as Whitman, Seattle U, Willamette, Gonzaga, etc? Some will but it seems that more will not. The “not affluent” high achiever can top this merit based aid off with some need-based aid and get a screamingly good price at a private school.
The fairness of the bill will depend on how “affluent” is defined. My own experience has been that responsible parents who seriously saved for their kids college education have made themselves “affluent” and will qualify for mainly subsidized loans and work study, not grants.
marks @ 11
I believe “workforce training” refers to a program for dislocated workers funded by the Employment Security Department and administered by community colleges.
RDC @ 16
I’m afraid the higher education funding issue is a bit over my head, as this is not the area of state government I’m most familiar with, but for all the talk of middle class parents getting hard-hit by tuition increases, I think their even bigger concern is whether their kids will have access to the state university system. We’re in a situation where good students are being turned away, and community college transfer students can no longer count on admission to a four-year school. That’s a crisis for the students and parents affected by it. If the legislature comes up with a plan that offers greater admission certainty and guarantees they won’t pay tuition over a calculable amount, I think that will have a lot of appeal to those most directly affected by the higher education funding problem.
# 17
I’m glad to see someone on the right finally seeing the value of the ACLU!
I’m glad to see Goldy finally realizes he shouldn’t bring a pencil to a knife fight.
zip @ 23
I don’t see why that would happen. The elite private schools offer a definite advantage in the job market, and those who can get into those schools and afford to go, already do.
Don @ 25
Good point. Increasing accessibility is the major thrust of this proposal, as I read it. I am ignorant as to how tuition at UW or WSU compares with comparable schools elsewhere, at the present time. Years ago, though, I did know, and Washington schools were a real bargain, tuition-wise. I guess what is considered high or low is based on what you’re used to. Implicit in the proposal is that tuitions elsewhere generally are higher, because it speaks about tuitions rising to the average at peer institutions (assuming peer institutions means other state systems). Zip’s point above is well-taken also. This proposal merits discussion by the legislature. It probably won’t get it this year, but we should encourage its sponsors’ to bring it up next session again.
Zip @23,
The bill specifically states a threshold of 30 percent of family income as the maximum total tuition expenditure. So if a somewhat high income family has several kids in college at once, they may qualify for state grants. That is how affluent is defined.
As to competing for students, our colleges and universities will have to compete a bit more based on product than simply on price. Hey… that’s the free market, right? And why would an “affluent high achiever” choose WSU anyway?
The question here, is how do we pay for higher-ed? If we don’t have unlimited funds (and I trust the argument from the right is that we don’t) then we must ration… something. Right now we are rationing educational opportunity. I think it makes more sense — economically and morally — to ration the state subsidy to the families who really need it.
I wonder to what extent higher education funding is being affected by the changing world dynamic? The Cold War provided impetus for a lot of federal funding of both university research and student aid based on perceived defense needs for trained people and technology advancement. With the Soviet threat removed and other priorities competing for federal funding, how much of the federal education money has dried up, and is this a major factor in our state colleges’ funding crisis? I know the percentage of state funding has been steadily dropping as growth in K-12 enrollments, health costs, and transportation needs siphon off the limited state dollars. As a UW graduate, I get the “Columns” alumni magazine, and recall reading an article there not long ago that the UW has been told not to expect more state funding.
Hmmm.. Perhaps a latent anti-Coug sentiment in this forum that seems downright hostile?? Goldy, perhaps a relaxing visit to Pullman would do you some good. Definitely a bit less arrogant than some overrated local schools. http://www.wsu.edu/~wsucr/
As a Coug myself, I find Goldy’s hautiness insulting! Not really Goldy, I’m used to it living on this side of the mountains.. ;0
This is a subject dear to my heart. As we speak, the dear daughter is in the Feb/Mar crunch of college apps/acceptances/rejections. What a trip this has been.
She asked for autonomy in the school selection/application process which I gladly granted. Turns out she applied to 6 schools…2 public and the rest private with WSU being the only Washington school. I insisted she had one safety school that we knew we could afford in state.
As it turns out, the private schools run 25-30K a year, but have much more money and much more freedom in how they allocate the money they have to give so they actually cost less in the end. WSU is 16K/year to walk in the door now, so it doesn’t take much to get that 25-30K close to that.
Penn State is the other public school she applied to and it’s cost are comparable to WSU if they forgive the out of state tuition hike.
I would think this bill would be wonderfully welcome to folks who want their children to stay close to home. I wanted my girl to get out and learn the rest of the world, but most probably don’t. She was accepted to WSU and several of her friends have been accepted to UW, so I can’t speak to the number of slots or lack thereof.
Western is growing rapidly in popularity and more of her friends applied there than either WSU or UW.
The dear daughter has been accepted to the 3 schools she’s heard from, so now we wait until we hear from the other 3 at which point we start negotiating with each for the best *package*…what an amazingly difficult process. I would certainly welcome any legislation that makes this process easier on the kids and parents. If opening up slots decreases the competiveness, gets the focus back on really educating all our kids, I say have at it.
Right now it’s just a dog eat dog brawl…not fun at all. I will watch this bill anxiously and really appreciate you posting it Goldy…even if you are a skanky dawg! ;0
zapporo @32, G Davis @33,
I am admittedly an east coast, elitist, academic snob, as one might discern from an old post of mine, subtly entitled: “I’m an east coast, elitist, academic snob.” So don’t take my dig at the Cougs as a Dawg thing… our teams were commonly known as the “Fighting Quakers.”
But I stand by my comment, however arrogant it might sound. Unless there was some particular undergraduate program that UW or WSU excelled at, why wouldn’t you want to send your child to an Ivy League level university if you could afford it?
That said, if ten years from now my daughter chooses a WA state school, that’s up to her. We bought her a GET, so her tuition and fees are paid for, regardless of what happens to in-state tuition. So whatever happens with HB 1434 will have no financial impact on me personally.
I happen to like the Cougs, especially when they make cat food out of my alma mater. It’s a pulling-for-the-little-guy versus the arrogant-big-school thing with me. Also, the Dawgs are so infuriatingly lousy at times (along with the rest of Seattle’s sports teams) that you just want to hate ’em.
U.W. was my backup law school. I aimed high, also sending applications to Stanford and Yale. It was a waste of paper, because I couldn’t have gone to either of those schools on my G.I. benefits of $130 a month, and I had only $900 in my pocket when I got out of the service, most of which went for a used car. A VERY used car.
It’s probably just as well that I didn’t go to Yale, because I don’t think I would have fit in there. As some of you may have figured out, I’m not a product of the east coast elitist snob establishment. There were railroad tracks near where I grew up, and my family didn’t live on the snotty side of the rails. I started working when I was 13, left home when I was a teenager, and there was not a dime of family money — GET or otherwise — to help me get an education. There were too many younger siblings who had to be fed, plus two parents who had worked their way through college in the Depression and thought self-reliance builds character. I digress. I’ve simply got to tell you my Yale story. In those days, and perhaps still today, their law school application process included a personal interview with an alumnus. Since my application bore an “APO San Francisco” return address, they naturally assumed I was in San Francisco, and quite understandably scheduled an appointment for me with a Yale-educated lawyer practicing in San Francisco. I wrote back to them and explained that “APO” meant “Army Post Office” and the APO San Francisco address meant I was in Vietnam, and while I would be delighted to attend the interview, it was thousands of miles away, I didn’t have transportation to S.F., and I didn’t think the Army was going to let me take time off work, so to speak. I got a very amusing letter back from them that basically said, okay under the circumstances let’s skip the interview in your case.
I never got an admissions decision from either Stanford or Yale. I don’t know if I would have been admitted to either school, but I do know I would not have attended Stanford or Yale on my post-used-car savings of $50 and my income of $130 a month. When I got admitted to U.W., I took it right away. Getting into any law school, let alone a snob school, was an iffy deal. The year I started law school at U.W., over 2,200 people applied and I was one of 140 who got in. I don’t know what the numbers are at the private schools but it’s always been very tough to get into any law school, and there was a lot to be said for going to a hometown school. (I’m not a Seattle native, but for all practical purposes, it’s the only town I’ve ever called “home” in my adult life.)
Don@27.
Your point of the pencil is well taken; sharp one. On the topic of education, I see Goldy is not only book learned but also street smart. :-)
This may be a bit off-topic as far as tuition rates goes, but I think we need to seriously consider Gregoire’s proposal for another 4 year school in state. I believe that she suggested Yakima as a location and that might make sense. Looking forwardm the UW is not going to be able to expand easily to meet the needs due to geography if nothing else. Add that to the lower costs of land that you would find otherwise around the state and I think it might just balance out.
Why not make Seattle Central Comm. College a four year? It’s already one of the largest in the state, has massive facilities, happens to be a relatively good school on it’s own.
Yakima would make sense as Central and Eastern service the more populated corridor.
Private -v- public…in the dear daughter’s search she said a good communications or government schools/alum network was the first criteria, Division III was second as the dear girl is a soccer/lacrosse hopeful and Division III NCAA regulations are not overkill as Division I &II are (plus I don’t know that she’s good enough for the upper D’s but for gawd’s sake don’t tell her I said that! ;0), size was third as she wanted mid sized, location was fourth. Tuition, costs were not really an issue as most of the schools she applied to had money to give and if you met their criteria for admissio, more than likely you met the criteria for grants/scholarships.
An example is one school that accepted her. 30K a year walking in the door costs of which they immediately forgave 13K on merit, need based to follow. Nice package all based on the FAFSA form and initial application.
The state schools systems work that you have to be accepted first, then you have to apply to them for their financial aide as a seperate step. It puts at risk those kids that take the initiative of early decision as everyone must be granted on formulas with few exceptions. Plus, if a kid has already been accepted to a comparable private school with now comparable costs, why would they bother?
All that said, I do think the costs are stupid ridiculous for kids these days. Someone please tell me how any bachelors degree is worth 120K? How long would it take to recoup that investment on a new to the workforce salary?
And Goldy…is your GET transferable to other schools than state? What if your daughter is a whiz kid accepted to one of the whiz kid schools? Or an athlete who’s offered a package to play somewhere? Where does that money fit in there?
And please Goldy…esplain what the heck is up with the Penn schools and their choices of mascots? What the heck is a Nittany Lion and isn’t Fighting Quakers and oxymoron? ;0
– A number of points to make before jumping on a plane to Phoenix (so I won’t be able to respond – sorry):
Goldy @ 30
And why would an “affluent high achiever” choose WSU anyway?
I’m a proud Coug, but I know that the “affluent high achiever” isn’t choosing WSU right now. For this reason, I think the potential negative effect is minimal at most. What little impact it might have would be greatest at UW, but I still wouldn’t expect it to be noticable.
Even if it was, Huck the Fuskies. (What do you expect? I AM a Coug.)
As to competing for students, our colleges and universities will have to compete a bit more based on product than simply on price. Hey… that’s the free market, right?
In theory, that would be true, but the purpose of this proposal is not to improve the quality of higher education in Washington. As I see it, the main purpose is to expand the quantity of higher ed.
I applaud the goal, but I believe we have enough quantity. The target should be to improve the quality. In order to do that, we should not seek to ensure that anyone who wants a college education can get in to a state school. We should be focusing our efforts on ensuring that those who demonstrate the greatest aptitude can attend regardless of their financial means. This proposal certainly contains some elements of this, but I would need to be convinced that it would improve the product’s quality, not just its general availability.
– The “peer institutions” question:
I’ve had some tangential experience with this (talking to our department chair over lunch, etc.), but I won’t be able to do it justice, so I’ll leave the meat of this for someone else. The Cliff Notes version is that “peer institutions” are determined by a number of factors, including their location (urban v. rural), size, program focus, etc. There is always a controversy among schools about the criteria for judging what an appropriate “peer” is because that determines how your institution will be evaluated. For instance, WSU’s peers often include both the U. of Wisconsin – Madison and Kansas State. Now, WSU will typically compare poorly to UW-M, but K-State is usually a more favorable comparison.
It will be important to hear the official designation of “peer institutions” because that has potentially wide-ranging impacts on this proposal.
– I’ll save my more extensive comments about the deleterious effects of the market analogy in higher education combined with an attitude of entitlement to a college degree for another time. :-)
– Anyhoo, thanks for sifting through a longish post. Sorry I won’t be able to respond. Have at it, and have a good weekend.
P.S. Goldy, I know it wasn’t an easy decision and it will make your life more difficult in the short term, but I think you have done the right thing with JCH.
isn’t Fighting Quakers and oxymoron?
Not only that, but the fight song is “Fight, Fight, Inner Light, Kill Quakers Kill”
:)
G Davis @38,
Yes, the GET is transferable… you can cash it out at the current average price of tuition at WA state colleges and universities. So come to think of it, if my daughter does go out of state, or to a private school, I suppose dramatic WA tuition hikes are to her benefit. Hmmm. So I guess it’s important to disclose that we own a GET.
As to the “Fighting Quakers”, I suppose the official nickname is just the “Quakers” (our mascot looks like the guy on the Quaker Oats box), but I’ve always enjoyed the oxymoronic irony of the more commonly used “Fighting Quakers.” Of course its better than Harvard, Dartmouth and Cornell, whose mascots are just colors.
jcricket @40,
Actually, its:
Fight on, Pennsylvania, put the ball across that line.
Fight, you Pennsylvanians, there it goes across this time.
Red and blue we’re with you
And we’re cheering for your men.
So it’s fight, fight, fight, Pennsylvan-I-a,
Fight on for Penn!
(Though against Harvard we often just chanted “Eviscerate them, Eviscerate them, make them exsanguinate!”)
exsanguinate? Man – you fancy east-coast liberal academics sure know how to trot out the snobby $5 words. ;)
Aaron @20 – Your ACLU link sucks. Perhaps if you had a bit of post-graduate education? Or perhaps someone under the age of seven to help you with HTML tags? Just some friendly on-topic advice.