Graduate Quota

TX State funding changes focus less on enrollment

By Connie Thompson

Enrolling for classes is no longer enough. This Congressional term, marked by budget cuts and fund reallocation, has yet again set its sights on higher education.

During the regular session, which ended May 30, the 82nd Texas Legislature discussed a switch to an outcome-based higher education funding alternative that would change certain requirements for state colleges and universities to receive government funding.

Current funding practices specify that colleges and universities merely maintain a certain level of student enrollment to receive funding. However disparities between the growing state population and enrollment in institutions of higher education have been increasingly evident.

“I think that if you look at the effort that has been underway for several years now, one of the big concerns is ‘how are we going to make sure the people of Texas can get a college degree?’ The Texas Educational Coordinating Board data states that we’re on track in terms of accessibility, and I’m not talking just about Texas A&M, I’m talking about all the universities in Texas,” said Karan Watson, provost and executive vice president for Academic Affairs. “We’ve grown in enrollment like they’ve hoped we would. As the state grows in population, we need to grow in enrollment and having not been as successful as some states in what percentage of our young people are going to college, we need to do a better job of that.”

This plan is intended to come to fruition by 2015 as a part of an educational plan called Closing the Gaps; a statewide plan initiated in 1999 that aims to improve higher education participation and funded research and maintain a high caliber of education. The plan snagged itself on which model would benefit the state in terms of increasing state-wide enrollment and graduates, yet not hurt universities that have a history of steady graduate output.

“Now as they look at the data, which is true in the state and true across the country, one of the concerns is even though there is a much higher number of students going to school now, either at community college or the 4-year college level or beyond, they’re not very happy with the growth of graduates,” Watson said. “If you take the University of Texas and Texas A&M out of the data then what you find is that for all of the universities and colleges in Texas, less than half of those students end up with a degree. So that kind of data suggests that we don’t need to just [give incentives to] people who enroll, we need to [give incentives to] people that graduate and get a degree. I think that the state of Texas has said that for all this enrollment at hand, we need to see better results in terms of how many students are actually finishing their degree.”

Such a switch would have Texas A&M and the University of Texas at Austin, the two most productive universities, hinging on the final decision to be made by the Texas Education Coordinating Board. One example model discussed would require both universities to increase their awarding of undergraduate degrees by 46,000 diplomas per year.

“No [proposals] have been passed, but there were some proposals that have been discussed. The actual legislation in place is telling The Coordinating Board to spend the next two years figuring out which adjustment will be most appropriate.  Part of why we’re there is because UT and A&M both graduate in 6 years, more than 80% of the students that start [college in Texas]. So it’s vastly different at these two schools than it is at the average Texas institution,” Watson said. “Some of the models they were looking at were actually going to hurt us and it’s not good to [take away incentives from] those who are actually doing the best.”

According to Watson, due to the lack of funds and budget cuts, The Coordinating Board was having to take certain parts of the current funding based on enrollment and reallocate it back to the schools based on graduation.

“[That approach] was to reward schools that have growth in the number of graduates. There were other approaches that would disadvantage large schools like UT and us, who not only had and will continue to have big numbers and good percentages for a long time, but have had a pretty steady output. Some of their early approaches were going to take money from us and reapportion it to those who were growing more. They’re just going to have to work on that model a little bit more,” Watson said.

Along with A&M, other universities in the state are willing to work with The Coordinating Board to help determine the best method to enact the new legislation.

“UT Austin looks forward to working with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the higher education community to develop the formula funding recommendations to be submitted to the 83rd Legislature under the provisions of HB 9,” said Bill Powers Jr., president of the University of Texas at Austin.

The original version of the bill, House Bill 9, authored by the House Higher Education Chairman and Republican representative Dan Branch of Dallas, passed through both the House and Senate with a majority vote and was signed by Gov. Rick Perry on June 17 to be effective immediately. The bill outlines suggestions for the new formula to be considered by The Coordinating Board, however it only allows for 10 percent of the funding to be based on outcomes.

“Ninety percent of state funding is going to remain simply based on enrollment. Ten percent is going to change to this outcomes based funding, if it goes all the way through Austin,” said Jeff Pickering, student body president. “I’ve looked at it with my Vice President of Academic Affairs, Crystal Usher, and Vice President of Legislative Relations, Bryce Bender, and we’ve met about it and talked about it. We’ve really come together on this and I believe that it’s a really good thing. I think outcomes-based funding is a good way to hold higher education accountable to the state of Texas. Whenever you make a change like this, you want to make sure to not make it sweeping, because if it doesn’t work, then obviously you’re going to want to change it again. So that’s why only 10 percent of funding will change when this passes.”

Subsequent to HB 9, House Bill 1460, also authored by Rep. Branch, proposes amendments to the current educational code.  However leaves the final decision-making on the specifics of the formula to The Coordinating Board.

“The University of Texas at Austin supports public policy that encourages institutions of higher education to be even more productive in serving the citizens of Texas. Highly productive institutions like UT Austin and Texas A&M already successfully generate the highest graduation rates, target underserved populations, and graduate far more students in critical fields than any other universities in the state,” Powers said.

There was some concern in maintaining the quality of higher education and whether or not the change will indirectly put pressure on professors to merely pass students in order to keep the number of graduates at a certain quota.

“I’ve heard this [argument] before,” Pickering said. “I don’t think it’s valid. What that [argument] is saying is that the University administrators care more about the money they are receiving than the quality of education they’re putting out. And with every administrator that I’ve ever interacted with at this great school, I have yet to see somebody care more about money than the quality of our education and the value that we are giving to our students. Is money important to give value and quality? Absolutely. But I do not fall into the school of thought that somehow attaching money to total people graduating is going to decrease our quality just so that we can get more people graduating just so we can get more money.”

However, colleges and universities concerned about the switch shouldn’t be, said Pickering.

“The most important thing to remember is that this is not a switch, it is an experiment. It is an experiment to see how we can better hold our universities in the state accountable to the taxpayers in the state,” Pickering said. “And I think it’s good. I like this kind of thinking. I like innovative thinking. It’s a way we can try something new while not rocking the boat too much.”

The Coordinating Board has until the next Congressional session to determine which funding model will be of the most benefit. The final version of the bill will then pass through the 83rd legislature for a vote.

http://www.thebatt.com/news/graduate-quota-1.2418447?pagereq=1

Related articles

• Parents Need To Get on the Bandwagon for Higher Ed Reform (timesoftexas.com)
• Financing Education – “Outcomes-based funding” Has Strong Support (timesofoklahoma.com)
• UT Controversy – Third-Party Groups Try to Improve Public Universities (timesoftexas.com)
• The Abuse of Higher Education (timesoftexas.com)
• UT System Issues Updated Faculty “Productivity” Data (timesoftexas.com)