News & Updates

We’ve had a chance to review the Senate and House budget proposals in more detail — here are some basics:

The House cut the UW budget $261 million, compared to $189 million for the Senate and $116 for the Governor’s proposal.  The House allows tuition increases up to 10% (compared to 7% for the Senate and Governor), but it allows less flexibility in how to cut and requires that enrollments be maintained and that graduation rates be maintained in high demand fields.   Raises for all state employees and teachers were put on hold.

Community colleges were cut less than four year school.  Of the four-year schools, the UW received the largest cut (31% from its maintenance level — that’s the level that would have been needed to carry forward all programs at the same level as last biennium).

Here is a link to a statement posted by President Emmert on his blog.

Also, here is a sampling of this mornings budget coverage from the Seattle Times, Tacoma News Tribune, Olympian, and Everett Herald.

The Seattle Times also has an editorial this morning calling for increased tuition to mitigate higher education cuts.

The capital budget proposal will be released later today and we will have an update as it becomes available.

Also, remember that tomorrow from 10 am to 11 am I will be here for a live chat on the budget — what it means and where the process goes from here.  I hope you will join us.

This Thursday morning from 10 to 11 am I will be conducting a live online chat about the budget situation.  Come to the blog at that time where you can submit your questions, read answers, and see the comments of your fellow community members.  You can enter your email in the live chat box on the blog for a reminder.  This will be a first for us, but we hope it is a way to get more information to the university community and to help you get your questions and concerns addressed.

House budget writers have released their operating budget proposal and as rumored it cuts higher education deeper than the Senate version released yesterday.  Tuition is allowed to rise 10 percent under the House approach, but even with that the overall reduction is much larger.  We will have more specifics later — for now, here are stories on the House proposal from the Seattle Times and SeattlePI.com.

Here is some more coverage of and reaction to the state Senate budget proposal.

The News Tribune (Tacoma)

The Spokesman Review (Spokane)

The Olympian (Olympia)

The Everett Herald (Everett)

Seattle PI.com

House Democrats are scheduled to release their operating budget proposal tomorrow morning at 10:00.  We will have details of the key differences here as they become available.

One way to lessen the effect of dramatic budget cuts on students (fewer classes, fewer enrollments) would be to raise tuition above the 7% planned increase.  But the question then becomes:  how would a larger tuition increase affect the out-of-pocket costs that students must pay?  Our Office of Planning and Budgeting has put together an analysis of the effect of a 14% tuition increase ($875 per year) on the net costs paid by students.

Because of increased financial aid and increased federal tax credits, students with a family income below $160,000 would see no increase in net costs.  You can find a chart on the issue here.

President Emmert has released the following statement on the state Senate budget proposal:

The budget presented today by the state Senate is deeply disturbing. Cuts of this magnitude would seriously damage the UW’s ability to serve the state.  The Senate’s budget would reduce the number of students admitted to the university at a time when we have the largest demand in history.  The budget cuts would also force students to take longer to graduate because many fewer courses would be available for them. They would also mean a large number of layoffs and job eliminations, probably impacting more than 1,000 UW staff.

It is particularly disappointing that the Senate budget does not include greater increases in tuition to help offset some of the cuts. Higher tuition levels would allow the UW and the rest of higher education to avoid cutting admissions and courses.  Federal increases in Pell grants and tuition tax credits make higher tuition affordable for many students and families. By not allowing more flexibility on tuition the Senate proposal blocks the UW, and the rest of higher education, from helping students and the State.  When combined with these very deep budget cuts, the result is a huge step backward for Washington.

In the coming weeks as the legislature debates the budget, we will be working hard to reduce the level of the budget cuts and convince legislators that higher tuition is affordable and essential.  This is a task that will demand all of our collective efforts.

We expect to have more on the budget proposal and its implications later today.

Senate budget writers have unveiled their operating budget proposal and as expected it contains major cuts in higher education.  We are reviewing the numbers and will be posting more analysis and reaction here later today.  For now, here is a link to the official legislative budget page, which contains a highlights package as well as a link to the Seattle Times story on the announcement.

Both Senate and House Democrats have confirmed they will be unveiling operating and capital budget proposals next week.  The Senate has scheduled a press conference for Monday; the House is set to follow suit on Tuesday.  While there have been extensive efforts to reach agreement on many parts of the budget, expect there still to be significant differences between the chambers.

The Seattle Times has an item reporting that Senate cuts to higher education are expected to be much larger than those contained in the Governor’s budget proposal.  It also reports that a decision on whether to allow tuition increases greater than 7 percent per year is still under discussion.  For it’s part, the House is looking at a much smaller capital spending plan, using some of the savings to shore up the operating budget.  This may have an effect on campus construction projects.  We will be posting budget details here as soon as they are available.

Monday also marks the cutoff for policy committees to act on bills from the opposite house (fiscal committees have until April 6).  Action will shift from the committee rooms to the floor.

So put your helmet on and strap in — it will be a fast and furious ride from here until the end of session April 26.

The Higher Education Coordinating Board has issued the newest edition of its annual report comparing undergraduate tuition levels for Washington schools with national and “peer state” averages.

For community colleges the tuition levels are roughly comparable ($2,730 for Washington versus a national average of $2,793).  For four-year schools similar to the UW, the disparity is greater ($6,697 for Washington versus a national average of $7,481).  That difference is ever larger when the UW is compared to “peer state” schools where tuition averages $8,681.

You can find the complete report here.

This morning’s Seattle Times has an opinion piece by Lynne Varner on the need to preserve educational opportunity, especially during difficult economic times.  In part, Varner says —

According to a University of Washington study, 40,000 more children will slide into poverty next year if food-stamp programs, child-care subsidies and public-education budgets aren’t protected.

This places us in a seminal moment. The recession will either be the reason we blame for losing ground in our battle to protect children or the moment we rise to the occasion.

Young people helped by TAF and Mount Baker’s residents are part of the “squeeze generation,” a term emanating from Washington, D.C., where scholars and economists just finished up the Color of Wealth Summit, examining income disparities among race. The squeeze generation are the first in their families to attend college. They battle the racial disparities that kept their parents from achieving financial security, while at the same time laying the groundwork for their own children’s security.

You can read the entire opinion piece here.