The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released the Measuring Up 2008 report today. Notably, the report highlights that higher education in the United States is still too expensive, showing that 49 states failed in affordability.
Here is a link to:
Full Report
Maryland highlight
11.21.2008
Mandating Healthcare for College Students?
In absense of universal access to healthcare, policymakers are considering mandated health insurance for college students in Maryland. Lead advocate Delegate Pena-Melnyk (D-PG County) explains that the estimated increased cost of healthcare is not a "deal-breaker" for affordability of higher education. DelmarvaNow.com highlighted a forum on the issue in an article.
Initial estimates claim that healthcare for college students would add an additional $1000 to the cost of tuition. Those whose parents have healthcare could exempt from the plan. Right now, policies vary across different institutions. At UMBC and Salisbury, students can choose to purchase healthcare through the campus, but are not required to have healthcare to attend school or live on campus. At the University of Baltimore, students must have healthcare to attend school full-time. At UMES, students are all charged for a minimal fee for the health center that covers basic care (students can exempt out of this fee if they show proof of healthcare). Additionally, college athletes and international students must have health coverage.
While healthcare is important, even health advocates in higher education put student insurance low on the priority list, behind sex education and immunization, according to Andy Clark of the USM.
Personally, I believe that the requirement is unnecessarily prohibitive for college students to attend institutions of higher education. The only case in which the university should consider requiring health insurance is in the case in which order and safety on campus is significantly at risk in the absence of healthcare for students. College athletes and international students would fall into this classification. It might also be reasonably argued that on-campus students should have coverage, although I would not currently advocate this point.
With that said, should such a requirement be added to the cost of higher education, the cost should be included in the calculation of "cost of education" used for financial aid purposes. Universities should also focus their collective efforts on providing more affordable optional health coverage for students.
With the expected rise in tuition rates, advocates concerned with accessibility in higher education should focus efforts on recruiting and retaining college students by mitigating college costs, not adding to them.
Initial estimates claim that healthcare for college students would add an additional $1000 to the cost of tuition. Those whose parents have healthcare could exempt from the plan. Right now, policies vary across different institutions. At UMBC and Salisbury, students can choose to purchase healthcare through the campus, but are not required to have healthcare to attend school or live on campus. At the University of Baltimore, students must have healthcare to attend school full-time. At UMES, students are all charged for a minimal fee for the health center that covers basic care (students can exempt out of this fee if they show proof of healthcare). Additionally, college athletes and international students must have health coverage.
While healthcare is important, even health advocates in higher education put student insurance low on the priority list, behind sex education and immunization, according to Andy Clark of the USM.
Personally, I believe that the requirement is unnecessarily prohibitive for college students to attend institutions of higher education. The only case in which the university should consider requiring health insurance is in the case in which order and safety on campus is significantly at risk in the absence of healthcare for students. College athletes and international students would fall into this classification. It might also be reasonably argued that on-campus students should have coverage, although I would not currently advocate this point.
With that said, should such a requirement be added to the cost of higher education, the cost should be included in the calculation of "cost of education" used for financial aid purposes. Universities should also focus their collective efforts on providing more affordable optional health coverage for students.
With the expected rise in tuition rates, advocates concerned with accessibility in higher education should focus efforts on recruiting and retaining college students by mitigating college costs, not adding to them.
11.17.2008
Salisbury Student Lend a Hand to Community
This past weekend, Salisbury students reached out to community members through a "We Love Salisbury" day. Students worked together with community members to rake leaves, do yardwork, and cleanup lawns. Afterwards, community members and students joined together on campus for a barbeque.
The event is part of an effort by the SU SGA to develop strong relations with the Salisbury community, one that has been strained in past years.
(Read the article highlighting the event DelmarvaNow.com newspaper)
The event is part of an effort by the SU SGA to develop strong relations with the Salisbury community, one that has been strained in past years.
(Read the article highlighting the event DelmarvaNow.com newspaper)
USMSC Meeting, November 16
The USM Student Council met yesterday at Towson to discuss a number of issues. Here is a link to my report to the Council.
The Council discussed a number of issues including:
I also asked the Council to research and consider a number of issues:
The Council will meet next at UMBC on December 7 to consider candidates for student regent.
The Council discussed a number of issues including:
- the impact of decreased state budget revenues on operating budgets for institutions
- efforts to proactively address illegal filesharing on campuses in order to avoid over-regulation by the federal government and/or music industry
- advocacy/lobbying plan for the Spring session
- Annapolis 101- lobbying day for students with the state legislature
I also asked the Council to research and consider a number of issues:
- differential tuition by discipline
- differential tuition increases/decreases for each institution
- mid-year tuition increases
- mandatory healthcare
- in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants
The Council will meet next at UMBC on December 7 to consider candidates for student regent.
11.14.2008
Higher Education Finances and What to Expect
Inside Higher Education highlights broad-based budget cuts across the nation. Salisbury President Janet Dudley-Eshbach warns of furloughs and mid-year tuition increases. The Chronicle of Higher Education highlights expert analysis of the tough consequences for higher education in the expected recession over the next two to three years.
The economy is in poor shape, and higher education will suffer. Fiscal pressures will come from a variety of areas:
- decreased state funding support for the operating and capital, due to declining state revenues
- decreased enrollments because of a lack of income and access to loans (both potential and current students); resulting in decreased tuition receipts
Undoubtedly, the more states cut their budgets, the more higher education will be cut. And so, to offset these lost revenues, higher education institutions will be pressured to either cut expenditures and services or significantly raise tuition. Each institution will likely work to balance the two budget-balancing strategies in the way to maintain prestige/quality and accessbility/affordability.
Next month, the Maryland Board of Revenue Estimates will examine the expected revenues for the next fiscal quarter for FY09. Possibly, the Board will identify the need to cut more from the budget. Do recall, the state experienced budget cuts amounting to around $350 million after the last revenue estimates were evaluated (higher education saw a $35 million cut, or 10%). Surely, with the further downturn in the economy over the past few months, we could expect more cuts.
A few things to consider:
- higher education occupies about 21% of the discretionary portion of the state budget (the portion of the budget that is not prescribed through legislative mandate)
- higher education saw 10% of the last round of budget cuts
- higher education is often seen as a non-essential expenditure
So, I presume that while Governor O'Malley has consistently provided significant financial support for higher education, he will be pressured more and more through fiscal realities to significantly cut higher education. In other words, the more money that is cut from the budget in Maryland, higher education will likely recieve an increasing percentage of the budget cut.
So then what happens? Tuition increases or service cuts. Take your pick. This can play out in a few ways:
- mid-year tuition increases
- larger class sizes
- decreased course offerings
- furloughs for staff
- hidden student fees and surcharges
- closed and limited student services (i.e. early closing hours for library)
- decreased and enveloped financial aid
- increased prices on campus sales (i.e. food, textbooks, t-shirts, etc.)
- fewer student job opportunities
- fewer research opportunities
- less research time for faculty
So, what are you willing to sacrifice? How do you suppose me and other policy makers balance affordability and quality?
The economy is in poor shape, and higher education will suffer. Fiscal pressures will come from a variety of areas:
- decreased state funding support for the operating and capital, due to declining state revenues
- decreased enrollments because of a lack of income and access to loans (both potential and current students); resulting in decreased tuition receipts
Undoubtedly, the more states cut their budgets, the more higher education will be cut. And so, to offset these lost revenues, higher education institutions will be pressured to either cut expenditures and services or significantly raise tuition. Each institution will likely work to balance the two budget-balancing strategies in the way to maintain prestige/quality and accessbility/affordability.
Next month, the Maryland Board of Revenue Estimates will examine the expected revenues for the next fiscal quarter for FY09. Possibly, the Board will identify the need to cut more from the budget. Do recall, the state experienced budget cuts amounting to around $350 million after the last revenue estimates were evaluated (higher education saw a $35 million cut, or 10%). Surely, with the further downturn in the economy over the past few months, we could expect more cuts.
A few things to consider:
- higher education occupies about 21% of the discretionary portion of the state budget (the portion of the budget that is not prescribed through legislative mandate)
- higher education saw 10% of the last round of budget cuts
- higher education is often seen as a non-essential expenditure
So, I presume that while Governor O'Malley has consistently provided significant financial support for higher education, he will be pressured more and more through fiscal realities to significantly cut higher education. In other words, the more money that is cut from the budget in Maryland, higher education will likely recieve an increasing percentage of the budget cut.
So then what happens? Tuition increases or service cuts. Take your pick. This can play out in a few ways:
- mid-year tuition increases
- larger class sizes
- decreased course offerings
- furloughs for staff
- hidden student fees and surcharges
- closed and limited student services (i.e. early closing hours for library)
- decreased and enveloped financial aid
- increased prices on campus sales (i.e. food, textbooks, t-shirts, etc.)
- fewer student job opportunities
- fewer research opportunities
- less research time for faculty
So, what are you willing to sacrifice? How do you suppose me and other policy makers balance affordability and quality?
11.13.2008
MHEC Hearing in State Plan on Higher Education, Nov. 19
On November 19, a public hearing on the State Plan for Higher Education will be hosted by the Maryland Higher Education Commission. The Maryland Higher Education Commission serves as the coordinating body of higher education in the State, guiding community colleges, private institutions, and public institutions. Check out the MHEC website announcement and the draft document up for comment.
11.03.2008
Advocacy Best Practices: UMCP SGA's "Take Action" Site
UMCP SGA has developed a "Take Action" website designed to provide students with opportunities to advocate, information about current events and issues, and links to useful resources. The website is part of President Sachs' efforts to engage students in advocacy efforts across the university.
The website includes three white papers on The Purple Line, Textbooks, and Tuition Policy. The papers provide great information in a succinct manner.
Kudos Jonathan and the rest of the SGA at UMCP!
The website includes three white papers on The Purple Line, Textbooks, and Tuition Policy. The papers provide great information in a succinct manner.
Kudos Jonathan and the rest of the SGA at UMCP!
10.31.2008
Become the Next Student Regent
It's that time of year, already. Time to find my replacement! Here is some information that you might find useful:
Position Description
Application
Each year, students from across the system compete for the position. Here is a brief overview of the process:
1. Students express interest, contact Vice President of Student Affairs at their campus and compete in an "institutional" selection process, if there is more than one person interested
2. By November 26, the President of each institution must submit their nominee (maximum 1 candidate from each degree granting institution, maximum 11 candidates)
3. The USM Student Council interviews candidates on December 7, and will likely select the three top candidates. In the form of a letter, the names will be forwarded to Chancellor Kirwan.
4. Chancellor Kirwan will interview candidates, and barring no major concerns, will forward the USM Student Council's recommendations to the Governor's Office of Appointments (usually occurs in January)
5. The Governor's Staff reviews the nominees and makes a selection sometime between February and June 30th.
If you have questions about the process or the position, please feel free to contact me by phone (410) 294-8581 or by email joshmichael@umbc.edu.
Position Description
Application
Each year, students from across the system compete for the position. Here is a brief overview of the process:
1. Students express interest, contact Vice President of Student Affairs at their campus and compete in an "institutional" selection process, if there is more than one person interested
2. By November 26, the President of each institution must submit their nominee (maximum 1 candidate from each degree granting institution, maximum 11 candidates)
3. The USM Student Council interviews candidates on December 7, and will likely select the three top candidates. In the form of a letter, the names will be forwarded to Chancellor Kirwan.
4. Chancellor Kirwan will interview candidates, and barring no major concerns, will forward the USM Student Council's recommendations to the Governor's Office of Appointments (usually occurs in January)
5. The Governor's Staff reviews the nominees and makes a selection sometime between February and June 30th.
If you have questions about the process or the position, please feel free to contact me by phone (410) 294-8581 or by email joshmichael@umbc.edu.
10.30.2008
Textbook Affordability Summit, November 24
Former USM student leader elected to prominent state role
Former USM Student Council Chair, Brian Bailey (UMBC '07), was recently elected to serve as the Chairman of the Baltimore County Democratic Party. Brian will serve as Chairman of the party for the remaining two years of the 2006-2010 term.
Brian had a celebrated tenure at UMBC and with student leadership in Maryland. He served as the Director of Community and Governmental Affairs for the UMBC SGA for three years, the Vice Chair of the USM Student Council (2005-2006), and as the Chair of the USM Student Council (2006-2007). He also interned as a lobbyist for Capitol Strategies, LLC. Additionally, he was heavily involved in Paula Hollinger's Campaign for Congress, District 3.
Expect to see Brian's name in coming years in decades in the forefront of Maryland politics...
Brian had a celebrated tenure at UMBC and with student leadership in Maryland. He served as the Director of Community and Governmental Affairs for the UMBC SGA for three years, the Vice Chair of the USM Student Council (2005-2006), and as the Chair of the USM Student Council (2006-2007). He also interned as a lobbyist for Capitol Strategies, LLC. Additionally, he was heavily involved in Paula Hollinger's Campaign for Congress, District 3.
Expect to see Brian's name in coming years in decades in the forefront of Maryland politics...
10.29.2008
Tuition Trends Up, Financial Aid to Fall
The College Board reported today on increases in tuition above rates of inflation. It explained that tuition has raised on average 6.4% at public four-year institutions. In response, the American Council of Education (ACE) stated that conditions are such that families should expect increases in tuition levels and decreases in financial aid, as highlighted in the Washington Post.
Maryland might be in a better situation than most states because of Governor O'Malley's expressed support for maintaining affordability at USM institutions.
Maryland might be in a better situation than most states because of Governor O'Malley's expressed support for maintaining affordability at USM institutions.
10.28.2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
