Anybody expecting bold gestures or a call for shared sacrifice from our state’s civic “leaders” should think again, at least when it comes to funding higher education:
A task force charged with finding stable money to pay for higher education in Washington state has some ideas it wants the Legislature to consider.
At the top of its list announced Monday: Find someone other than state government to pay the bill.
That’s right, the last thing the panel, chaired by Microsoft executive Brad Smith, seems to want to propose is that we should adequately fund our state college and university system by raising adequate tax revenues. Instead, they suggest the state hike tuition, and then raise a new scholarship fund via donations from individuals and corporations.
Uh-huh. I myself have long advocated that the state consider moving to a high-tuition/high-financial-aid model in order to more efficiently target state subsidies at a time of tight budgets, but I’ve become increasingly concerned that we’re on the verge of embracing the former without implementing the latter. And the apparent reluctance of this panel to consider taxes as a legitimate revenue source, well, it only adds to my unease.
Other bold proposals include saving money, by doing more with less:
— Eliminate underused majors and courses.
— Offer more online classes, particularly for large introductory courses.
— Create three-year bachelor degree programs.
— Limit state support for students taking credits beyond what they need to earn a degree.
— Test students on prior learning experiences and give them credit.
— Recognize college work done during high school.
Do any of these six proposals actually make the educational experience at our state colleges and universities any better? No. Of course not. They make it cheaper… and in every sense of the word.
I haven’t yet read the task force’s report, so I don’t mean to entirely dismiss it out of hand, but I’m disappointed by what appears to be a relentlessly free market approach to the problems at hand. Soviet-style controlled economies ultimately failed; I understand that. But there must be something in between that, and pinning the educational aspirations of the children of the working and middle class on the voluntary generosity of wealthy individuals and corporations, right?
Of course there is, and I’m guessing it looks something like the taxpayer funded state college and university system upon which much of the economic gains of the past half century were built.
I thought Ave readers might be interested in some of the comments over at Horsesass:
3. Tondaleo Lipshitz spews:
The ‘effectiveness’ of Republican politicians lies in the fact that it’s alot easier to tear something down than to build it up — which is something they might like to keep in mind if they are still phantasizing about funding a military/industrial complex.
8. Sean spews:
“It doesn’t make any damned sense that two-thirds of the voters in this state voted against a tax on 1% of the state’s population”
Of course it doesn’t, you’re a fucking idiot. The rest of us knew this would slowly be lowered, first to $200k and couple, then $100k a couple. Then down and down through the middle class.
12. correctnotright spews:
I agree with Goldy on this one – these “proposals” are not about making education better or even keeping it the same – they are about making public adeucation second class and basically elinimating the cheaper public option for most students and families.
Other countries adequately fund their schools – we do not. The state is broke because the sales tax dried up and now education is being left behind – eventually, we will pay for not adequately funding education. Cutting education by over 40% will have negative consequences down the road and businesses will simply recruit more people from other countries and complain about our education system that is underfunded.
18. Liberal Scientist spews:
This has been a key conservative meme for 150 years. They want to force us to beg from them. They’ll give us the money if we promise to live the way they tell us to.
This is precisely my criticism of Puddy and Cynical – part of their raving about charity is that they want to reinforce the hierarchy, to lord over the less well off when they ‘give’ – it’s all about sequestering power and enforcing class distinctions. And of course, earning Jesus Points for charity.
01/03/2011 at 3:05 pm
19. Liberal Scientist spews:
Of course it doesn’t, you’re a fucking idiot. The rest of us knew this would slowly be lowered, first to $200k and couple, then $100k a couple. Then down and down through the middle class.
Wow, and then we’re all paying the same tax. Isn’t this what Republicans usually demand we do? Why is it bad here? Do you prefer an unstable and highly regressive system?
01/03/2011 at 3:11 pm
20. HowCanYouStillBeProudToBeAnOBAMA-Ass? spews:
But if you’re a student in the public school system, well, it’s like being drafted by the Detroit Lions.
22. ArtFart isn’t ready to be classified as a “useless eater” spews:
Per the Morrill Acts, land-grant colleges and universities were established “without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactic, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.”
Our resident “legal eagles” might care to shed some light on this, but it would appear that the effective charter of the UW and WSU would be to make postsecondary educational opportunities, focusing on agriculture, technology and the sciences, accessible to the children of common workers. This would seem to imply that it be within the abilities of them and their families to pay for it.
23. Bluecollar Libertarian spews:
“Create three-year bachelor degree programs”. NO!
Don’t these people understand that the quality of education has gone downhill over the last few decades? A three year degree will do nothing to solve the problem.
Too many students go to a four year school unprepared for the work needed, if the schools are worth a damn. Too many are unprepared to live away from home and end up dropping out. Most of those who drop out do so in the first and second year.
To solve that problem we should require all students obtain an Associates degree at a community college and then spend the next two years working at the Bachelor level. Basically do away with the four year degree college program and instead have two year Associate degree followed by two years Bachelor degree program.
Next if a student has to take remedial courses that should be charged back to the high school they attended in some fashion.
Also something should be done about duplicate programs that are offered. Consolidation would not hurt. In fact EWU should be absorbed into WSU.
27. Mr. Baker spews:
After a 20 year break I recently finished my BA.
Classroom utilization could be improved by having trying the retail “store within a store” model, run the first two years at universities more like community colleges. At the end of two years you get your AA, or AS, and then you apply to transfer to the BA, or BA school. Right now it is little more than a formality.
They should go through something a little more formal like the UW transfer program.
Classes above the AA/AS should cost more, and follow the high-tuition/high-financial-aid model.
University should focus on delivering the classes for the 4 year, masters and doc studies, and minimize as much as possible, or completely get out of the business of delivering basic studies, even if that mean sub-letting facilities to a lower cost public college provider.
28. Mr. Baker spews:
@23, see 27, two ways at looking at the same thing. At UW I would have the Seattle Community Colleges take over all of the classes of the first two years that they already deliver all around the city at a lower cost.