HBCU Funding Report

The Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education, commonly referred to as the "Bohanan Commission" presented the final draft of the contracted report on funding for historically black colleges and universities (HCBUs) in Maryland. The four HBCUs in Maryland are University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, Coppin State University, Bowie State University, and Morgan State University. All but Morgan are member institutions of the University System of Maryland.

The report highlights studied undergraduate education, graduate education, and capacity of facilities within its report. Generally, the report found that HBCUs need more funding and support if they are to maintain their unique "dual mission" of 1) serving disadvantaged student populations, and 2) maintaining and expanding high quality academic programs. The report defines the standard of measure to me "similarity of outcomes," meaning that funding guidelines should be established to assist HBCUs to reach similar graduation rates, retention rates, and attainment levels.

After a cursory review of the report, I had a few concerns. First, I disagreed with the assessment that HBCUs should take the primary role in serving disadvantaged students, over community colleges (pages 6 and 7). We must ask whether students who are not ready for four-year college after high school should be remediated in public four-year institutions at a high cost, or at community colleges which are in the business of remedial and supplementary education. I do believe, though, that HBCUs play a prominent role in partnership with community colleges in serving disadvantaged students, possibly through expanded 2+2 program partnerships.

I also was struck by the expectation that HBCUs serve as both access and high quality institutions. From my perspective, most all other institutions fall on the spectrum of access and high-quality, atleast across Maryland. In other words, top-notch academic programs in Maryland are often housed at more rigorous institutions such as UMCP, Salisbury, and UMBC. More access oriented institutions, such as Frostburg, UMUC, and UB (undergrad), focus more on supporting students in their academic tenure. I question whether delineation of focus for HBCUs might be a more worthwhile approach. In other words, should not Morgan and UMES focus on high rigor academic programs, and Bowie and Coppin focus more on broad access, or some other more fitting arrangement..

Another issues of concern to me in the report is the lack of conversation about the political and decision-making structure of higher education in Maryland. The report highlights a lack of strategic planning for Morgan in the State (page 19), but makes no mention of its independent governing structure outside of the University System of Maryland. The report also neglects to address the lack of political independence of the "coordinating arm" of higher education, in which the Secretary of Higher Education reports directly to the Governor and not the Maryland Higher Education Commission.

Finally, I found the lack of detail regarding specific funding levels surprising. While some mention is found in the appendix of funding levels from the state and from tuition, the lack of study on this issue is concerning. The premise of the report is that more money is needed to make outputs more equitable; yet, the report simply assumes that more money will solve the problem. The report talks very little of the impact that increased funding has had on HBCUs in advancement over the past two decades. Possibly such an analysis would lead to meaningful suggestions as to how much more money is needed to raise outcomes at HBCUs.

For those interested in learning more about what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues, check out US. v. Fordice (1992) (full text / Oyez Summary). Also, see the article highlighting the report in the Baltimore Sun today.

Competitive Contracting for Food at Campus Events

It seems like a small issue, but many of our student fees go to purchase food for campus events. The UMBC SGA recently purchased ice cream for an event to watch the Vice Presidential debate. The UMBCUnderground blog picked up the story, examining the cost of the food provided, totaling $450. I inquired on the post to see if the SGA looked into other alternatives:

Should we not question the actual expenditure by the SGA? Members of the food contract review committee worked hard during the selection process of Chartwells to ensure that student groups could go outside of the on-campus food provider for food at events. In other words, should we be upset with Chartwells because they have high prices, or be upset with the SGA for not looking outside Chartwells? Maybe the price for Chartwells will subside if student groups choose other providers…

While I have raised the issue in this specific case at UMBC, the broader issue addresses whether student groups on campuses actually have the opportunity to pursue competitive alternatives for food contracting. UMBC's previous contract with Sodexho prohibited groups from serving food on campus from outside food providers. Bowie State students are currently participating in a review of their food contract and considering a provision allowing student groups to look outside their food provider for food at events.

What policy exists on your campus? Have you had any experience with ordering food from your on-campus food provider? Other thoughts?