Compliance with USM Textbook Policy: May 1 Publication

The Board of Regents passed the USM Policy on Textbook Affordability Measures at the February 13 meeting held at Towson University.  One of the more progressive portions requires all textbook selections to be finalized and published by May 1 for fall semesters and December 1 for spring semesters in II.1 of the policy.  This allows both for early access for students and assurances for the bookstore on which books will be used in the coming semester.  This advance knowledge allows bookstores to purchase textbooks at a higher price during buy-back.  The policy reads (III.10.II.1):

All University System of Maryland degree-granting institutions shall post on the institutional website ISBN, title, author, publisher, and edition for required course material as soon as faculty members and the bookstore have finalized the textbook selection but no later than May 1 for the fall semester and December 1 for the spring semester.  In the case that a course has not been assigned a faculty member by the given deadline, textbook selection shall be conducted and communicated to enrolled students expeditiously upon selection of the materials.

As of May 1, today, 7 USM institutions have complied with the USM policy.  They include:

• University of Maryland, Baltimore County
  
• University of Maryland, College Park
  
• Bowie State University
  
• Towson University
  
• Salisbury University
  
• University of Baltimore
• University of Maryland, Baltimore

 Four institutions have not complied with the USM Policy:

• University of Maryland University College
• Coppin State University
• University of Maryland, Eastern Shore
• Frostburg State University
  

I have been in contact with USM officials on this issue.  Preliminary discussion yields that the USM is under the impression that the newly passed state legislation "trumps" the USM Policy in this area.  The state legislation requires that universities publish textbook selections on their websites three weeks after the original selection by the professor and one week after for other bookstores.  There is no specific drop-date as in the USM policy.

But there are a few problems with the USM intepretation.  First, the USM Policy should be in effect already becuase it goes into implementation with the textbook selection process for classes in Fall 2009.  Second, and more importantly, the USM policy goes further than the state legislation, in setting a drop-date deadline (May 1 for fall and December 1 for spring) and requires immediate publication upon finalization of the order.

Because compliance with the USM policy does not preclude compliance with state law, why cannot the USM policy be followed?  The language goes further than the state legislation.  More details and updates to come...

Textbook Legislation Passes

The General Assembly considered an amended bill in the House and Senate late last Thursday and passed it in both chambers.  Most problems have been removed from the bill, although university bookstores are required to hand over unconfirmed textbook selections to private, off-campus bookstores one week after the original submission by faculty.

Legislative leaders bypassed the traditional "conference committee" process (described in a previous post ), and simply developed a back-room compromise.  This procedure allowed for the bill to advance late in the session.  (Recall that recent days have been swamped by a discussion of a screening of a porn film at UMCP).  The new bill addresses a number of amendments that I had concerns with but still places an undue burden on campus-based bookstores of turning over information to private bookstores prematurely.  I believe this could have an unintended consequence of raising book prices for students.

Yet, the bill contains a number of positive components for students, warranting its passage:

• guarunteed ISBN publication to students
• publication to students prior to the week before classes
• requirements on publishers in providing information to faculty
• a process that has faculty consider a number of factors in selecting a textbook, including the cost, content revisions in a textbook, and the necessity of supplementary materials

Combining the federal legislation passed in Fall 2008, the USM Board of Regents policy passed in February 2009, and the new state legislation, students have been well served in enacting policy to lower the cost of textbooks.

Check out this article in the Diamondback highlighting the passage.

A Porn Policy?

After a failed attempt to cancel a showing of Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge by State Senator Andy Harris, he tried to tie capital construction funds for the USM to the development of a policy limiting explicit material on campuses.  Senate President Miller called the amendment to the budget out of order.  The chamber supported Miller by a vote of 35-12. 

But surely, this issue is far from over.  The legislature may ask governing bodies of public institutions to report on policies for explicit material.  And, governing bodies, like the Board of Regents, may pass a policy to preempt any legislation limiting funding for higher education before next session.  It looks like the issue has cooled off for now, but keep your eyes open on the issue.

In my previous post, I noted my opposition for any limitations, in legislation or policy, on First Amendment rights and freedom of expression on university campuses:

Viewing a pornographic film on campus in the student union is distasteful.  But this conversation is about much more.  It's about the innapropriate use of legislative authority.Senator Harris' attempt to use the power of the purse to limit academic freedom and societal discourse at USM institutions is irresponsible and out of place.  The film cost no money to the university, and the student activities board thought it to be a positive component to the discourse on the UMCP campus.  While i find the movie distasteful, I fear of the potential for censorship to come on Senator Harris' and other's moral beliefs.  When dealing with adults in our nation, we have celebrated a long standing tradition of free speech.  Why should this change in campuses of public universities?  Additionally, the legislature should respect the administrative authority of the USM and the UMCP administration in governing public universities in Maryland on such administrative issues.  This move flies in the face of the principle of the First Amendment.

Accordingly, I will likely not support a USM policy, envisioned by Senator Harris.  Thoughts?

USM Budget Compromise

With the legislative session in Annapolis on Monday, Senate and House leaders have been hard at work coming to a compromise on budget issues, including funding for the University System of Maryland.  In his original budget for higher education, Governor O'Malley proposed at $28 million increase for the University System of Maryland, $16.9 million dedicated to offsetting lost revenues from a tuition freeze for in-state students.  Recall, the House and Senate were at odds on cuts from the Governor's original budget, in an effort to offset lower-than-expected tax revenues:

• House - $10.8 million from annual budget; $10 million from fund balance
• Senate - $5.4 million from annual budget; $4 million from fund balance

The Budget Conference Committee reconciled the budget late Tuesday night.  Here is the outcome:

• $5.8 million annual budget; $9 million from fund balance

It's questionable as to whether this $14.8 million cut will afford the system a tuition freeze again this year.  The Board of Regents will discuss and decide on this issue in coming weeks.  More to come on the Governor's federal stimulus supplementary budget...

Pornographic Films and First Amendment Freedoms

Senator Andy Harris and Senate President Mike Miller challenged the showing of a pornographic film Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge last thursday by levereging $400 million of state appropriations for the USM institutions.  The student-led activities board that selects movies chose to air the film after they were presented with a free license from Digital Playground.

In response, the UMCP administration overrode the student activity board and stopped the showing of the film.  Outrage from UMCP students and others ensued.  The film has been shown at Northwestern, UCLA, and Carnegie Mellon already. Since, students at UMBC and UMCP have moved forward in sponsoring showings of the pornographic film, not for pure entertainment purposes, but to resist the infringement of academic freedom on college campuses. Many argue that the choice of viewing such a film is option, and it is not the job of the legislature to censor adult material from adults on college campuses.  Any step to limit explicit material is a step in the direction of limiting academic freedom and discourse.

The topic has recieved significant press:

• http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.porn03apr03,0,7632367.story
• http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.porn04apr04,0,2590515.story
• http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.porn05apr05,0,2964274.story
• http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/03/pornography
• http://www.diamondbackonline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=6a52747e-0736-4e12-8730-6b13518d318e
• http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/04/sex_senators_and_stupidity.html
• http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2009/04/campus_sex_shows_um_panics_whe.html
  
• http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2009/04/06/News/Students.Push.On.With.Porn-3698133.shtml
  

Here's my view:  Viewing a pornographic film on campus in the student union is distasteful.  But this conversation is about much more.  It's about the innapropriate use of legislative authority.

Senator Harris' attempt to use the power of the purse to limit academic freedom and societal discourse at USM institutions is irresponsible and out of place.  The film cost no money to the university, and the student activities board thought it to be a positive component to the discourse on the UMCP campus.  While i find the movie distasteful, I fear of the potential for censorship to come on Senator Harris' and other's moral beliefs.  When dealing with adults in our nation, we have celebrated a long standing tradition of free speech.  Why should this change in campuses of public universities?  Additionally, the legislature should respect the administrative authority of the USM and the UMCP administration in governing public universities in Maryland on such administrative issues.  This move flies in the face of the principle of the First Amendment.

Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants...Updates

The Arkansas Senate voted down legislation that would provide undocumented immigrants with in-state tuition rates, if they attend an Arkansas public school for atleast three years and recieve a high school diploma.  Similar legislation has been approved by 10 states in the U.S.  Yet, many states have been hesitant to move forward with such legislation, including Maryland, becuase of possible violation of federal law, as covered in a recent article in DIVERSE.

Congress passed the Illigal Immigration and Immigration Responsibility Act in 1996 to address a number of issues in the immigration debate.  One issues is that of tuition for undocumented immigrants.  The IIRIRA reads:

In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

In essence, Congress intended to eliminate the ability for states to afford in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants through this bill.  The ten states that provide in-state tuition for these individuals, and those who attempted to do so, see a loop hole in this clause by affording in-state tuition rates for any individual who attends school for three years in-state.  Accordingly, this can be an in-state citizen, an out-of-state citizen, a legal immigrant, or an undocumented immigrant.  

Congress since attempted to overturn the limiting clause from the IIRIRA through the DREAM Act.  A major leader in this effort is Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois).  Votes for approval are in place, but some in the Senate have blocked this from through a failed cloture vote on the past. A recent article in Inside Higher Education highlights that proponents are attempting to attach an amendment to another bill, such as the Department of Defense Authorization Act.

Of note, the Supreme Court has yetto take up the issue of whether the federal law preempts state laws in this specific area of immigration.  Yet, the California Court of Appeals recently invalidated the California law permitting this policy in a case Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (2008).  The case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court.

I have written a paper on this issue, which you can read at your leisure.  Here is a brief abstract:

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, intending to end the practice of affording undocumented immigrants in-state tuition rates for college. Subsequently, state legislatures have acted to circumvent the federal law through technical changes in the requirements for in-state tuition. In light challenges in federal regulation of immigration, many illegal immigrants reside in America and progress through K-12 public schools. 65,000 undocumented immigrants graduate from high school each year and over 1.5 million undocumented immigrant children attend public K-12 schools. A technical battle has ensued in courts, debating the balance of federal intent and textual interpretation in a federal preemption challenge. While courts have periodically dismissed cases on procedural grounds in the past, a recent California Court of Appeals Decision in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (2008) invalidated a California law allowing for in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. The case has subsequently been appealed. Yet, without a U.S. Supreme Court decision, varied interpretations of the federal law will result in incongruent execution of a critically important policy of higher education tuition for undocumented immigrants.

Textbook Legislation passes the House

The House of Delegates passed their version of a Textbook Bill today, after a favorable review with amendments from the Appropriations Committee on Saturday.  Substantive changes reduce administrative burdens to universities and bookstores, which will ensure that the cost of textbooks is not inadvertenly increased.  A few amendments seem to cater to book publishers, skirting provisions attempting to address bundling and integrated textbooks.  Here is a list of amendments that I will advocate for:

• On page 4 Line 15 C.1.III remove the word "not"  to read "Which textbooks are integrated textbooks and are therefore subject to subsection (F) (3) of this section, as reported by the publisher under subsection (E) of this section."
• On page 5 Line 33 D.2.II.5  remove the word "not" to read "...that an integrated textbook is subject to subsection (F)(3) of this section."
• On page 6 Line 20, E.1.III:  reinstate "expressed as an itemized list."
• On page 6 Line 24&25 E.1.V:  reinstate "Variances in price, if any, between bundled and unbundled items."

With two versions of the bill passed in the House and the Senate, a conference committee will be convened.  The committee will include three senators and three delegates, and four of the six must come to consensus on an acceptable version of the bill.  Then, comparable amendments are submitted to both bodies; 50% approval of the new bill is needed from both houses prior to April 13.  

The House bill generally addresses most of my concerns with the bill regarding administrative burdens and limitations on academic freedom.  Hopefully, members of the Senate and House cancome to a reasonable agreement, hopefully much closer to the House version, so that the bill does not have the same fate as last year's version.

Budget Updates from the Senate and the Governor

Today, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee voted in its amendments to the Governor's originally proposed budget.  Members approved a base budget cut of $5.4 million and a fund balance cut of $4 million.  This $9.4 million cut is less than half of the proposed $20.8 million cut from the House ($10.8 budget, $10 fund balance).

Both committee reports have maintained the expectation that the Board of Regents will still support a tuition freeze, despite cuts that will likely erode quality.

In the Governor's amended budget today, he cut the original $16.9 million from the base budget that would support the tuition freeze.  In its place, he has filled the $16.9 million hole with two years of funding from the federal stimulus package.  The upside of this proposal is that there will be full-funding of the budget and tuition freeze for two years.  The downside is that after two years, a larger-than-normal hole will open up that will need to be filled by state dollars in FY2012.

**TAKE ACTION** Support Full Funding for Higher Education

Funding for USM institutions is at risk!  The House Appropriations Committee voted to decrease funding by $20.3 million last week.  Take 2 minutes to let your elected representatives know how important it is to support higher education (if you are an out-of-state student, feel free to use your campus address).

Click this link to TAKE ACTION to send an email message to your legislators letting them know that you support full-funding of the Governor's budget.  The sooner you send, the better.  Forward this link to your friends, parents, neighbors, and professors so that legislators hear how important funding higher education is (they can use this specific link).  It only takes a few minutes by simply entering your address and editing a pre-drafted message.  Be sure to let your legislators know your role in the USM (student, faculty, etc.).

A cut of $20.3 million will ensure tuition is not frozen for in-state undergaduates, lower the quality of programs for all students, and could threaten pay/job security for faculty and staff.

If you have further questions, please email me ASAP at joshmichael@umbc.edu or call me at (410) 294-8581.

Read this message from the USM website:

Support Higher Education Funding  Oppose Legislative Cuts to Higher Education

Governor O’Malley’s FY 2010 budget proposal for the University System of Maryland supports the overarching goals shared by the state and the University System of Maryland:

• provide access to high-quality and affordable programs and services;
• ensure that the state’s public higher education system sustains its critical role in advancing Marylanders’ quality of life—intellectually, economically, socially, culturally, and in areas related to health.

The Department of Legislative Services is reccomending the General Assembly cut the USM funding by $5.7 million dollars and possibly more. Ask your legislators to reject this cut and fully fund higher education to maintain the quality, affordability and accessability of our public universities.

Cuts proposed in the House, debate over tuition freeze

The subcommittee on Education of the House Appropriations Committee voted last week to cut the USM Budget another $20.3 million as part of an effort to balance the state budget.  Of the $20.3 million, $10 million will come from the base operating budget (meaning a carry-over cut in years out) and $10.3 from the fund balance, meaning a one-time cut from the USM's savings that are used to sure up bonds for buildings.

The Governor proposed in his budget this year to increase funding for higher education by $27 million, $16.9 million dedicated to supporting a fourth straight tuition freeze for undergraduate students.  The increases, together, would both maintain quality and increase affordability by holding down the cost of tuition for students. 

Yet, after cutting $20.1 million from the budget, House officials still feel that the USM should hold the line on tuition.  Subcommittee Chair Delegate John Bohanan said, 

I would hope and doubt that the impact would result in a tuition hike for students...In the end, higher education is going to fare extremely well.

In the Governor's original budget, the tuition freeze support funding is listed as a separate line-item.  Delegates left this language in, assuming that the designation would ensure that the money would actually be used to hold tuition.

USM Chancellor Brit Kirwan expressed that this was not the case, and that with general fund dollars cut, that the tuition freeze dollars would then simply fill the whole of depleted funds.  The Board of generally only supported "funded" tuition freezes, of which the house proposal would not be.

I personally am opposed to the concept of an "unfunded" tuition freeze, as is the case in the House version of the budget.  Fortunately, the Board of Regents sets tuition policies, partially removing the decision from political pressures.  Chancellor Kirwan has highlighted that higher education in Maryland appreciates all the support and recognizes the need to cut the budget during the tough ficsal times--but not at the cost of major deficiences in quality.  

While the House version is far from the final proposal, the move to institute an "unfunded" tuition freeze from legislators is concerning.  With strapped universities, quality erodes.  Class sizes grow, faculty are overloaded, library resources remain stagnant, campus hours shorten, other fees arise, among other indicators.  A moderate tuition increase is an appropriate compromise if the state cannot fund the USM budget to the appropriate level.

But, in the meantime, the Senate is still in the process of developing its budget proposal.  Traditionally, the Senate is a bit more liberal in supporting higher education.  I have met with both the Chair of Budget and Taxation, Senator Currie, and the Chair of the Education subcommittee, Senate Kasemeyer, who both said to me that they plan to provide full funding for a tuition freeze.  So, we continue to share our concerns and thoughts with members in the Senate.  Once the Senate has a budget proposal, the House and Senate will meet in conference committee to work out details.

Check out articles highlighting developments:

- in The Sun

- in The Diamondback

- in The Chronicle of Higher Education

Textbook Update

During my hiatus last week, a number of advancements have occurred in the realm of textbooks.  After a worthwhile hearing in the House on February 17, Delegate Rice committed to proposing significant amendments to the House version of the bill (HB 85 ) which will be submitted soon.  At the same time, the Senate Bill (SB 183) was scheduled for a Senate floor vote on Friday February 20.  Senator Middleton raised significant concerns on the floor, and first laid over the bill to Tuesday February 24.  On the floor, a number of amendments were proposed.  An amendment to change the publication timeline of textbook selections to once the order is "finalized" failed 22-24.  An amendment by Senator Astle to change "affirm and acknowledge" to "acknowledge" in section D passed 25-22.

So, the bill has passed in the Senate 45-0 in its current form.  The Senate now waits for the House to finalize the cross-filed bill.  If there are any differences in the two bills, a conference Committee will be formed.  This appears to be likely with the House adopting amendments supported by the USM Students panel, the USM, Community Colleges, Independent Colleges, MHEC, and Bookstores.

One major compromise that will likely be included is extending the publication of the textbook selection in Section G from the earlier of 1 week or the final selection to 30 days after the original selection.  The student panel testified that publication 1 week after the original selection would require bookstores to publish unfinalized information and then students could purchase wrong books.  The compromise extends this timeline to 30 days.  Do recall, at all USM schools, all selections must be posted for the Fall semester by May 1 and for the Spring semester by December 1.

This compromise, and the inclusion of Senator Astle's amendment, adequately address the main concerns that I have outlined.  I have pulled the letter from the CapWiz program at UMBC and will be working with student leaders to develop a consensus on the issue.  The Senate bill still raises issues, but the House amendments, expected from Delegate Rice, will be satisfactory and in the end, actually help students.

Testimony on House Bill 85

I testified on Tuesday as part of a panel of USM student leaders expressing support with amendments to House Bill 85.  The USM Student Council voted unanimously (10-0) at its 2/9 meeting to only support the bill with substantial amendments. Panel members included:

• Bill Logan, Towson undergraduate, Chair of USM Student Council
  
• Brady Walker, University of Baltimore law, Vice Chair of USM Student Council
  
• Sarah Elfreth, Towson undergraduate, Towson SGA and 2009-2010 USM Student Regent
  
• Roberto Munster, UMCP graduate, UMCP Graduate Student Government and USM Student Council member
  

Our testimony highlighted a number of additions and concerns, addressing concerns of costly administrative burdens, publication of unconfirmed information, limitations on academic freedom, an possible unintended consequences.  We submitted an amended version for review (email me at joshmichael@umbc.edu for a full tracked-changes version).

House members were receptive to comments, and Delegate Craig Rice is willing to carve up the bill to avoid the explained unintended consequences.

The Diamondback covered the event, highlighting the potential increased costs for students, resulting from the proscriptive language.  An editorial  was also published today.

Textbooks hit the press, USM policy & state legislation

The USM textbook policy and state legislation have gotten a lot of newspaper coverage in recent days.  The Board of Regents Education Policy Committee considered the textbook policy on Monday, and state legislation had a hearing on Wednesday.

I have spoken out in support of the state legislation with amendments.  I have some concerns with the bill, because I think it overburdens the administrative function of the bookstore, to the point where student costs will rise whether textbooks are purchased at the bookstore or not.  Additionally, the USM policy and federal legislation address the pertinent issues that impact tuition affordability by increasing redtape (see sections C & D).

In the Examiner Article, a quote highlights my statement that I would prefer to purchase books at the campus bookstore, when prices are comparable.  The reason for this is that the revenues collected on top of the cost of the book help cover the personnel costs of the arduous process of selecting books, as well as to subsidize other costs in the university.  Profits made on textbooks purchased outside of the bookstore go to the pockets of private businesses and corporations.

In my view, the goal should not be to run campus bookstores out of business by adding significant amounts of red tape, but to lower the cost of assigned books and then providing students with the ISBN number so they can search outside the university for books when the costs are overpriced.

Examiner Article
Diamondback - USM Policy / Legislation  / Editorial
The Towson Towerlight

USM Textbook Policy to be passed

Chancellor Kirwan, USM staff, and the Board of Regents were very receptive to amendments to the textbook policy at yesterday's Education Policy Committee Meeting of the Board of Regents.  After some conversation, the Board agreed to adopt the policy in principle, with expectations for amendments in coming days.  The Board is set to vote on the policy at its February 13th meeting at Towson. (Copy of new draft / marked-up version).

The policy is quite timely, considering that the Senate's Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee will review the textbook legislation (SB 183).  This legislation causes some concern, with possible undue burdens on bookstores and institutions, evenutally increasing costs for students.  I have draft testimony for your consideration--let me know what you think.

Also, see an article from The Diamondback on yesterday's meeting.

Tuition Freeze Debated, Front and Center

The policy debate of freezing tuition for in-state, undergraduate students has come to the spotlight in recent days.  Despite the challenging financial times in the state, the Governor has brought the proposal to the fore heralding it as one of his highlights of the budget proposal.  In his State of the State Address, O'Malley took on critics directly:

Is the fight for affordable college about politics??? You’re darn right it’s about politics. It’s about the politics of inclusion. It’s about the politics of prosperity. It’s about the politics of opportunity. It’s about the politics of posterity. It’s about the politics of my kids and yours. It’s about the politics of the hardworking people we serve. You’re darn right it’s about politics.

Legislative leaders have a different perspective on the issue, particularly Senate President Mike Miller, highlighted in The Sun today.  House Speaker Mike Busch has spoken out, explaining that increased investment should be made in community colleges.  The Governor has invested $16.9 million in the FY2010 budget to fund the tuition freeze.

USM officials, though, stand strong behind the Governor.  Chancellor Kirwan highlights the psycological access impediment of "sticker shock."  As many of us know, relying solely upon financial aid and loans for funding a college education is unreliable and stressful.

The Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education, commonly known as the Bohanan Comission, proposed in its final report that Maryland strive to reach the 50th percentile in tuition costs in the United States.  Currently, tuition at public institutions ranks 16th in the US and will rank 18th if a tuition freeze is funded this year.  Notably, after two years of double-digit increases in tuition under the Ehrlich administration, tuition in Maryland shot up to 6th nationally.

It's important to put the cost of education into perspective for Maryland families.  Between 2002 and 2007, tuition costs grew by 44.7%.  At the same time, median income grew by only 16.4%.  In other words, tuition is growing three times as fast as family wealth, making higher education significantly less affordable for Maryland families.  Trends like this make higher education less and less a public comodity and more for those who can afford it or earn merit scholarships.  And, in tough fiscal times, families who are not eligible for financial aid are struggling to pay for college otherwise.

USM officials and the Governor recognize the need to maintain affordability for Maryland students and families.  Instead of expanding quality during tough times, legislators should maintain their dedication to holding the line on affordability to ensure that college remains a public good.

Higher Ed's Corner of the State Budget

In the fall of 2007, many of us spent time lobbying state legislators and policymakers to establish the first ever dedicated funding source for higher education in the United States.  You may recall emails from the administration or SGA volunteers asking you to contact your legislators to lobby for increased funding for higher education.  And, a number of student leaders participated in a Higher Education Rally in Annapolis during the heart of the 2007 Special Session.  The vehicle for this funding was the Higher Education Investment Fund, or HEIF.

Specifically, the HEIF is funded through a half-percent increase in the corporate income tax.  It is estimated that the state could recieve upwards of $66.5 million this coming year from the fund, according to the 2009 Dept. of Legislative Services Fiscal Briefing.  Originally intended to "supplement" and not "supplant" current funding in higher education, it's unclear whether on not the fund actually brings more money to higher education.  Possibly the fund is more symbolic than anything else, suring up a mandate for higher education, albeit a small fraction of the state's usual support for higher education.

The original passage of HEIF had a sunset clause included for 2009, as an emergency valve if slots did not pass in November 2008.  Slots passed, and so the Governor has proposed to reauthorize the dedicated funding source.  It seems like the bill will pass the legislature.

The real question, though, is whether the HEIF will return to "supplemental" status, as opposed to "supplanting" status, if/when fiscal times looks better.

The Forgotten Cost in Higher Education: Textbooks

That first trip to the bookstore during our freshman year took most of us for surprise.  Accustomed to textbooks being provided in high school, few of us had any idea how expensive textbooks could be.  On average, books cost about 10% of the cost of tuition, which is quite a burden for students struggling to pay for college.

The Maryland Legislature has considered legislation in the past that would help regulate the sale of textbooks.  Fundamentally, the textbook market is flawed because those who select the good (professors) do not purchase the good (students).  In other words, without the appropriate attention to the cost of textbooks, market forces do not drive down the cost.

Textbook publishers over the years have taken advantage of this arrangement through a number of strategies.  Some providers simply do not provide the cost of materials when advertising books to professors.  Others bundle books with unnecessary supplemental materials.  Publishers also update copies of textbooks as frequently as every 18 to 24 months, in order to make old editions obsolete.

Delegate Craig Rice and Senator Paul Pinsky are sponsoring legislation, House Bill 85 , regulating the sale of textbooks in Maryland.  Highlights of the bill include requiring institutions to publish textbook selections with ISBN numbers well before the beginning of the semester, requiring bundled and unbundled packages to be sold, requiring that publishers provide the cost of textbooks to professors during textbook selection, and requiring the development of a process to ensure professors recognize the cost of course materials.

I support the bill wholeheartedly, although there likely will have to be some minor revisions to ensure passage. What are your thoughts?  What have been your experiences buying textbooks?  What could be included in legislation to make the cost of textbooks more affordable for you?

USMstudents Returns & Legislative Session Begins

Hi all.  I regret not writing for the past month, but am excited to get back in communication with you all.  With the Fall 2008 semester over and a new year and Spring 2009 semester ahead of us, we all have a lot to look forward to.

As I write, I am headed out the door to Annapolis for the official opening of the 2009 Session of the Maryland General Assembly.  The Session lasts 90 days.  This year's session will inevitably be crowded by the looming budget revenue shortfalls that have already impacted every part of state government.

For higher education, two major priorities will shadow most lobbying efforts.  First, affordability will be at the forefront of discussions at the intersection of state budget support and tuition rates.  Should the legislature choose to cut higher education significantly from the budget, the likely response will be a hefty tuition increase to offset the lost support.

The other major issue will be textbook regulation legislation.  Senator Pinsky will likely propose legislation similar to last year's Senate Bill 657 .  Some changes will be made to ensure that this bill passes this session.  Also, expect other changes at the institution level from the Textbook Affordability Summit held last month.

Other issues are expected to arise during the session that will affect higher education, such as tuition for undocumented immigrants and funding for capital projects.  I look forward to keeping in touch with you through USMstudents during the 2009 Legislative Session.