December 4, 2003
Faculty representative outlines key issues for higher education
We are just a few short weeks from the opening of the “short” session of the Legislature in Olympia. The 60-day session will begin on Jan. 12. As the UW faculty representative in Olympia, I work to make the faculty’s voices heard in the Legislature, along with my counterparts at the other five state public universities. Collectively, we represent more than 5,000 faculty statewide.
This year, I co-chair our statewide organization, the Council of Faculty Representatives, along with James Huckabay from Central Washington University. In what follows, I outline some of the key issues for faculty in the coming session.
Budget
After a difficult session last year with a more than $2 billion gap, tax revenue seems to have stabilized. The November revenue forecast projected a modest increase, though layoffs and flat employment continue. The November collections report was stronger than anticipated and currently the state has a reserve of $544 million, enough to cover most necessary increases. What this means to us is that we aren’t likely to be talking about another round of cuts for higher education. It also means that we are unlikely to be talking about increases for higher education either.
In the budget passed in the last session, cuts to higher education were modest compared to many other areas of state government. Even so, per student funding was cut again. Currently, the per student funding for the UW (all campuses) is $9,223 compared to the $12,148 average of our peers.
Despite the continued drop in per student funding, higher education did catch the attention of many legislators, and higher education issues will be prominent in the upcoming session. Awareness of the need for permanent, reliable funding for higher education has increased.
One proposal is being developed by the League of Education Voters and it would encompass preschool through college. The League of Education Voters is the organization that backed the successful but unfunded K-12 teacher salary and class size initiatives, both of which were cut in the last budget.
Different funding sources have been proposed but a likely proposal is an increase of 1 percent or less in the state sales tax. Such an increase would raise as much as $1 billion but re-funding the K-12 teacher salaries and class size reductions would take nearly half of that amount. Preschool costs would take another portion, leaving the rest to be distributed across all the state’s higher education sectors — community colleges, comprehensives and the research universities.
The state Legislature is likely to prefer that this proposal be sent to the state’s voters. These potential new funds would need to be in addition to the current levels of state funding. We will all be watching this developing proposal carefully.
Legislative Workgroups on a Strategic Master Plan and Performance Contracts
Legislation passed during the last session formed two legislative workgroups, one to develop a legislative statement on a strategic master plan for higher education and the other to explore the possibility of the state’s higher education institutions creating performance contracts with the state. This year for the first time, the Council of Faculty Representatives, along with WFT and WEA representing the community college faculty, were able to see faculty included in the statutory listing of stakeholders in both bills. I have been attending workgroup meetings throughout the summer and early fall; the final public meeting was Dec. 3.
The strategic master plan bill, ESHB 2076, charges the workgroup with assessing the needs of higher education in the state and developing a statement of legislative priorities. Part of the impetus for this workgroup is the expected increase in students graduating from Washington’s high schools. The class of 2008 will be the largest in history and if students participate in college at the same rate that they are currently doing, the state will need to provide spaces for another 30,000 students across all sectors.
The current system is already over-enrolled, so there is some urgency in assessing these needs. Legislators are concerned about efficiencies, including students who have more than 120 percent of the hours needed for graduation, and transfer students’ access to four-year schools, among other concerns.
Running parallel with the strategic master plan workgroup is the performance contract group, initiated by ESHB 2111. Performance contracts are agreements between institutions of higher education and states, with obligations on both sides. Additional or stable funding has been the usual means for the state to perform its obligation and performance measures, including graduation rates, retention, transfer, and some faculty indexes have been part of these agreements.
Lack of state funding has been the downfall of these agreements in other states. Other possibilities, such as control over tuition and enrollment, have been suggested as alternatives. The performance contract group hopes to take the strategic master plan priorities and incorporate those priorities into contracts, developing one or more pilot studies. Several of the four-year schools, including the UW, have volunteered to participate in a pilot study. New legislation will be necessary for any pilot studies.
What You Can Do
I would encourage you to watch for these developments as the session opens. If you have questions or concerns about these issues, now is a good time to contact (from home) your state legislators — before the session begins — and let them know of your interest and concerns. Many of them deserve our thanks too for holding off more damaging cuts. And please feel free to contact me with your concerns at stygall@u.washington.edu.
