States Are Still Funding Higher Education Below Pre-Recession Levels
This from the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
Most states have begun in the past year to restore some of the cuts
they made to higher education funding after the recession hit. Eight
states, though, are still cutting, and in almost all states —
including those that are have boosted their support — higher education
funding remains well below pre-recession levels. The large funding
cuts have led to both steep tuition increases and spending cuts that
may diminish the quality of education available to students at a time
when a highly educated workforce is more crucial than ever to the
nation’s economic future.
After adjusting for inflation:
- Forty-eight states — all except Alaska and North Dakota — are spending less per student than they did before the recession.[1]
- States
cut funding deeply after the recession. The average state is spending
$2,026 or 23 percent less per student than before the recession.
- Per-student
funding in Arizona, Louisiana, and South Carolina is down by more than
40 percent since the start of the recession (Louisiana is among the
eight states that continued to cut funding over the last year).
- Wyoming,
West Virginia, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and North Carolina cut funding
the most over the last year. Of these, all but Wyoming have cut per
student funding by more than 20 percent since the recession hit.
- In the last year, 42 states increased funding per student, by an average of $449 or 7.2 percent.[2]
Deep
state funding cuts have major consequences for public colleges and
universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide 53
percent of the revenue that can be used to support instruction at these
schools.[3]
When this funding is cut, colleges and universities generally must
either cut educational or other services, raise tuition to cover the
gap, or both.
Indeed, since the recession, higher education institutions have:
- Increased tuition.
Public colleges and universities across the country have increased
tuition to compensate for declining state funding and rising costs.
Annual published tuition at four-year public colleges has risen by
$1,936, or 28 percent, since the 2007-08 school year, after adjusting
for inflation.[4]
In Arizona, published tuition at four-year schools is up more than 80
percent, while in two other states — Florida and Georgia — published
tuition is up more than 66 percent.
- These sharp increases
in tuition have accelerated longer-term trends of reducing college
affordability and shifting costs from states to students. Over the
last 20 years, the price of attending a four-year public college or
university has grown significantly faster than the median income.[5] Federal student aid and tax credits have risen, but on average they have fallen short of covering the tuition increases.
- Cut spending, often in ways that may diminish access and quality and jeopardize outcomes. Tuition
increases have compensated for only part of the revenue loss resulting
from state funding cuts. Public colleges and universities have cut
faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, shut
computer labs, and reduced library services, among other cuts. For
example, since 2008, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
has eliminated 493 positions, cut 16,000 course seats, increased class
sizes, cut its centrally supported computer labs from seven to three,
and eliminated two distance education centers.[6]
A large and growing share of future jobs will require college-educated workers.[7]
Sufficient funding for higher education to keep tuition affordable and
quality high at public colleges and universities, and to provide
financial aid to those students who need it most, would help states to
develop the skilled and diverse workforce they will need to compete for
these jobs.
Such funding is unlikely to occur, however, unless
policymakers make sound tax and budget decisions in the coming years.
While some states are experiencing greater-than-anticipated revenue
growth due to an economy that is slowly returning to normal, state tax
revenues are barely above pre-recession levels, after adjusting for
inflation.[8]
To bring higher education back to pre-recession levels, many states
may need to supplement that revenue growth with new revenue to fully
make up for years of severe cuts.
But just as states have an
opportunity to reinvest, lawmakers in many states are jeopardizing it
by entertaining tax cuts their states and citizens can ill-afford. For
example, Florida — where higher education funding is 30 percent below
2007 levels and tuition at four-year schools is 66 percent higher — is
cutting taxes by $400 million in the current 2014 legislative session.
Other states are also considering damaging changes to their tax codes
that would make it very difficult to reinvest in higher education.
States Have Reversed Only a Portion of Funding Cuts, but They Must Do Much More to Make Up for Deep Cuts
State
and local tax revenue is a major source of funding for public colleges
and universities. Unlike private institutions, which may rely upon
gifts and large endowments to help fund instruction, public two- and
four-year colleges typically rely heavily on state and local
appropriations. In 2013, state and local dollars constituted 53
percent of education revenue — funds used directly for teaching and
instruction.[9]
While
states have begun to restore funding, resources are well below what
they were in 2008. Since the start of the recession, states have cut
higher education funding by 23 percent per student. Even today, as
state revenues return to pre-recession levels, most states continue to
fund their colleges and universities at much lower levels than before
the recession. Compared with the 2007-08 school year, when the
recession hit, adjusted for inflation:
- State spending on higher education nationwide is down $2,026 per student, or 23 percent.
- Every state except Alaska and North Dakota has cut per-student funding.
- 37 states have cut funding per student by more than 20 percent.
- Nine states have cut funding per student by more than one-third.
- Per-student
spending in Arizona, Louisiana, and South Carolina is down by more
than 40 percent since the start of the recession.[10] (See Figures 1 and 2.) Louisiana continued to cut funding further over the last year.
Over
the past year, most states have started to increase funding for their
public higher education systems after years of deep cuts. Forty-two
states are investing more per student this school year than they did a
year ago, adjusted for inflation. Over the past fiscal year, adjusted
for inflation:
- Spending is up $449 per student, or 7.2 percent, on average, among states that have increased higher education funding.
- The funding increases vary from $22 per student in South Carolina to $1,911 in North Dakota.
- Twenty-six states increased funding by more than 5 percent per student.
- Ten
states ? New Hampshire, North Dakota, Florida, Washington, Montana,
Massachusetts, California, Indiana, Tennessee, Maryland ? increased
funding by more than 10 percent.
- Eight states reduced
higher education funding per pupil, with the deepest cuts coming in
Wyoming, West Virginia, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. (See
Figures 3 and 4.)
Why Did States Cut Higher Education Funding After the Recession?
The cuts resulted from state and federal responses to the deep recession and a slow recovery.
- State tax revenues fell very sharply and are only now returning to pre-recession levels.
The recession of 2007-09 hit state revenues hard, and the slow
recovery continues to affect them. High unemployment and a slow
recovery in housing values left people with less income and less
purchasing power. As a result, states took in less income and sales
tax revenue, the main sources of revenue that they use to fund education
and other services. By the fourth quarter of 2013, state tax
revenues are only 0.4 percent greater than they were in 2008 after
adjusting for inflation.[11]
- Limited revenues must support more students.
Public higher education institutions must educate more students,
raising costs. In part due to the “baby boom echo” causing a surge in
the 18- to 24-year-old population, enrollment in public higher
education increased by about 1 million full-time equivalent students,
or 10 percent, between the beginning of the recession and the 2012-13
academic year (the latest year for which there is actual data).[12]
The recession also played a large role in swelling enrollment
numbers, particularly at community colleges, reflecting high school
graduates choosing college over dim employment prospects in the job
market and older workers entering classrooms in order to retool and
gain new skills.[13]
Other areas of state budgets also are under pressure. For
example, about 492,000 more K-12 students are enrolled in the current
school year than in 2008.[14]
Long-term growth in state prison populations — with state facilities
now housing more than 1.35 million inmates — also continues to put
pressure on state spending.[15]
- Many states chose not to reduce the size of spending cuts by enacting significant new revenues.
Rather than choosing a balanced mix of spending cuts and targeted
revenue increases, states relied disproportionately on damaging cuts to
close the very large budget shortfalls they faced over the course of
the recession. Between fiscal years 2008 and 2012, states closed 45
percent of their budget gaps through spending cuts and only 16 percent
of their budget gaps through taxes and fees (they closed the remainder
of their shortfalls with federal aid, reserves, and various other
measures). States could have lessened the need for deep cuts to higher
education funding if they had been more willing to raise additional
revenue.
State Cuts Have Driven Up Tuition
Over
the past year, as states have started to restore funding for public
higher education, tuition hikes have been much smaller than in recent
years. Published tuition — the “sticker price” — at public four-year
institutions rose in 38 states in the 2013-14 school year, but the
average across all states was a modest $120 or 1.4 percent after
inflation.[16]
- Just
seven states — Louisiana, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas,
Virginia, and Mississippi — raised tuition by more than $300 after
inflation.
- In 12 states, tuition actually fell slightly, adjusted for inflation, with declines ranging from $6 in Ohio to $165 in New Hampshire.[17]
Still,
since the 2007-08 school year, average annual published tuition has
risen by $1,936 nationally, or 28 percent, above the rate of inflation
(in non-inflation-adjusted terms, average tuition is up $2,702). Steep
tuition increases have been widespread, and average tuition at public
four-year institutions, adjusted for inflation, has increased by:
- More than 60 percent in six states;
- More than 40 percent in ten states; and
- More than 20 percent in 29 states. (See Figures 5 and 6.)
- In
Arizona, the state with the greatest tuition increases since the
recession, tuition has risen 80.6 percent or $4,493 per student after
inflation.[18]
Public Colleges and Universities Also Have Cut Staff and Eliminated Programs
Recent
tuition increases, while substantial in most states, have fallen far
short of fully replacing the funding that public colleges and
universities have lost due to state funding cuts.
Between 2009 and 2010 (the latest year for which data is available), tuition increases offset:
- Just
over 60 percent of cuts to funding that state and local governments
provided to public colleges that offer graduate degrees;
- About
30 percent of the cuts to funding that state and local governments
provided to public colleges that offer bachelor’s degrees but not
graduate degrees; and
- Only 14 percent of the cuts to funding that state and local governments provided to community colleges.[19]
Because
tuition increases have not fully compensated for the loss of state
funding, and because most public schools do not have significant
endowments or other sources of funding, public colleges and
universities have simultaneously cut spending to make up for declining
state funding.
Data on spending at public institutions of
higher learning in recent years are incomplete, but considerable
evidence suggests that many public colleges and universities have
constrained spending to make up for lost state funding, often in ways
that reduce the quality and availability of their academic offerings.
For example, since the start of the recession, in response to state
budget cuts:
- The Pennsylvania State
System of Higher Education has reduced the permanent workforce by 540
employees and frozen or discontinued new enrollment in 198 programs.
Another 45 faculty positions may be furloughed this year.[20]
- Arizona’s
university system has cut more than 2,100 positions; consolidated or
eliminated 182 colleges, schools, programs, and departments; and closed
eight extension campuses (local campuses that facilitate distance
learning).[21]
- The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill has eliminated 493 positions, cut 16,000 course seats,
increased class sizes, cut its centrally supported computer labs from
seven to three, and eliminated two distance education centers. [22]
- The University of Florida
cut 261 positions for full-time tenure and tenure-track faculty while
adding 234 part-time and non-tenure track positions, mirroring a
national trend toward using adjunct instead of tenured professors.[23]
- The Louisiana State University has eliminated 1,210 full-time equivalent positions, including a net loss of 220 faculty members.[24]
- Between 2009 and 2013, Colorado State University-Fort Collins cut more than 355 faculty and staff positions.[25]
More
recently, even as states have begun to reinvest in higher education,
public colleges and universities continue to deal with financial strain
from years of budget cuts and enrollment declines. For example:
- In Ohio,
the University of Akron will lay off 18 employees due to another
budget shortfall. Combined with the budget reductions approved in the
summer of 2013, the university will have eliminated an estimated 150
positions.[26]
- To reduce administrative costs, the University System of Georgia merged
Southern Polytechnic State University with Kennesaw State University.
This marks the fifth consolidation within the system since 2012.[27]
- In the 2014 academic year, funding cuts led North Carolina
State University to eliminate 187 full-time equivalent positions while
the NCST Library system will need to eliminate 27 positions and a
reduction in an online media service.[28]
- The College of Central Florida
will eliminate 28 positions for the 2014 school year, which will
require closing two certificate programs and one associate’s degree
program.[29]
Nationwide,
employment at public colleges and universities has grown modestly
since the start of the recession, but less than the growth in the
number of students. Between the 2007-08 and the 2012-13 school years,
the number of full-time equivalent instructional staff at public
colleges and universities grew by about 7 percent, while the number of
students at these institutions grew by 10 percent. In other words, the
number of faculty per student declined nationwide. In three states —
California, Nevada, and New Hampshire — full-time equivalent
instructional staff at public colleges and universities fell between
the 2007-08 and the 2012-13 school years, even as enrollment grew.[30]
Funding Cuts and Tuition Increases Have Shifted Costs From States to Students
During
and immediately following recessions, state and local funding for
higher education has tended to plummet, while tuition has tended to
spike. During periods of economic growth, funding has tended to
largely recover while tuition stabilizes at a higher level as share of
total higher educational funding.[31] (See Figure 7.)
This
trend has meant that over time students have assumed much greater
responsibility for paying for public higher education. In 1988,
public colleges and universities received 3.2 times as much in revenue
from state and local governments as they did from students. They now
receive about 1.1 times as much from states and localities as from
students.
Nearly every state has shifted costs to students over
the last 25 years — with the most drastic shift occurring since the
onset of the recession. In 1988, average tuition amounts were larger
than per-student state expenditures in only two states, New Hampshire
and Vermont. By 2008, that number had grown to ten states. Today,
tuition revenue now outweighs government funding for higher education in
23 states with six states — New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware,
Colorado, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — asking students
and families to shoulder higher education costs by a ratio of at least
2-to-1.[32]
With Incomes Stagnant or Declining, Families Have Been Hard-Pressed to Absorb Rising Tuition Costs
The
cost shift from states to students has happened over a period when
absorbing additional expenses has been difficult for many families
because their incomes have been stagnant or declining. In the 1970s and
1980s, tuition and incomes both grew modestly faster than inflation,
but in about 1990, tuition began to rise much faster than incomes.
(See Figure 8.)
- Since
1973, average inflation-adjusted public college tuition has more than
tripled, but median household income has barely changed, up merely 5
percent.
- There is one group for whom income growth has
held up reasonably against public college tuition: the highest-income 1
percent of families. Over the past 40 years, the incomes of the top 1
percent of families have climbed 186 percent.
- The
sharp tuition increases states have imposed since the recession have
exacerbated the longer-term trend. Tuition was up 26.1 percent between
the 2007-08 and 2012-13 school years, while real median income was
down roughly 8.3 percent over the same time period.
Cost Shift Harms Students and Families, Especially Those With Low Incomes
Rapidly
rising tuition at a time of weak or declining income growth has a
number of damaging consequences for families, students, and the
national economy.
- Students are taking on more debt.
Student debt levels have swelled since the start of the recession.
Collectively, across all institutional sectors, students held $1.08
trillion in student debt — eclipsing both car loans and credit card
debt — by the fourth quarter of 2013.[33]
Between the 2007-08 and the 2011-12 school years, the median amount of
debt incurred by the average bachelor’s degree recipient with loans at
a public four-year institution grew from $11,900 to $14,300 (in 2012
dollars), an inflation-adjusted increase of $2,400, or 20 percent. The
average level of debt incurred had grown from $11,200 to $11,900, an
increase of about 6.3 percent, over the previous eight years.[34]
- Tuition costs are deterring some students from enrolling in college. While
the recession encouraged many students to enroll in higher education,
the large tuition increases of the past few years may have prevented
further enrollment gains. Rapidly rising tuition makes it less likely
that students will attend college. Research has consistently found
that college price increases result in declining enrollment.[35]
While many universities and the federal government provide financial
aid to help students bear the price, research suggests that both the advertised tuition cost and
the actual price net of aid affect whether students go to college; in
other words, a high sticker price can dissuade students from enrolling
even if the net price doesn’t rise.
- Tuition increases are likely deterring low-income students, in particular, from enrolling.
Research further suggests that college cost increases have the biggest
impact on students from low-income families. For example, a 1995 study
by Harvard University researcher Thomas Kane concluded that states
that had the largest tuition increases during the 1980’s and early
1990’s “saw the greatest widening of the gaps in enrollment between
high- and low-income youth.”[36]
Gaps
in college enrollment among higher- and lower-income youth are already
pronounced, even among prospective students of similar ability
levels. In a 2008 piece, Georgetown University scholar Anthony
Carnavale pointed out that “among the most highly qualified students
(the top testing 25 percent), the kids from the top socioeconomic group
go to four-year colleges at almost twice the rate of equally qualified
kids from the bottom socioeconomic quartile.”[37] (See Figure 9.) Rapidly rising costs at public colleges and universities may widen these gaps further.
- Tuition increases may be pushing lower-income students toward less-selective institutions, reducing their future earnings.
Perhaps just as important as a student’s decision to enroll in higher
education is the choice of which college to attend. Even here,
research indicates financial constraints and concerns about cost push
lower-income students to narrow their list of potential schools and
ultimately enroll in less-selective institutions.[38]
In a 2013 study, economists Eleanor Dillon and Jeffrey Smith found
evidence that some high-achieving low-income students are more likely
to “undermatch” in their college choice in part due to financial
constraints.[39]
Where a student decides to go to college has broad economic
implications, especially for disadvantaged students and students of
color. A 2011 study conducted by researchers from Stanford University
and Mathematica Policy Research found students who had parents with
less education, as well as African-American and Latino students,
experienced higher postgraduate earnings by attending more elite
colleges relative to similar students who attended less-selective
universities.[40]
Increases
in Federal Financial Aid Since the Recession Have Offset Some Costs to
Students and Families, but State Aid Has Declined
While
tuition has soared since the recession, federal financial aid also has
increased. Between the 2007-08 and 2012-13 school years, Pell Grants —
the nation’s primary student grant aid program — doubled from $16
billion to nearly $33 billion. This substantial funding boost allowed
the program not only to reach a greater number of students, but also
to provide the average recipient with more funding. The average grant
rose by 24 percent — to $3,704 from $2,975, after adjusting for
inflation.[41]
The
increase in federal financial aid has helped many students and
families pay for recent tuition hikes. The College Board calculates
that the annual value of grant aid and higher education tax benefits
for students at four-year public colleges nationally has increased by
an average of $1,411 in real terms since the 2007-08 school year,
offsetting over 73 percent of the $1,936 tuition increase paid by the
average student nationwide. For community colleges, increases in
student aid have more than made up the difference, leading to a decline
in the net tuition cost for the average student.[42]
Since
the sticker-price increases have varied so much across the states
while federal grant and tax-credit amounts are uniform across the
country, students in states with large tuition increases — such as
Arizona, New Hampshire, or Washington — likely experienced substantial
increases in their net tuition and fees, while students in states with
smaller tuition increases may have realized net cost reductions.
While
the increase in federal financial aid has played a critical role in
partially offsetting state cuts to higher education, this funding is
threatened. The 2015 budget passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives in early April would reduce Pell Grant funding by up to
$125 billion over the next ten years, freezing the maximum grant
amount and restricting program eligibility.[43]
In
contrast to federal dollars, financial aid provided by states, which
was much smaller than federal aid even before the recession, has declined
on average since then. In the 2007-2008 school year, state grant
dollars equaled $729 per student. By 2012 — the latest year for which
full data are available — that number had fallen to $680, a decline of
roughly 7 percent.[44]
Low-Income Students Still Face High Levels of Debt Due to Rising Costs of Room and Board and Other Living Expenses
While rising
federal financial aid has reduced the impact of tuition and fee
increases on low-income students, the overall cost of attending college
has risen for these students because the costs of room and board have
increased, too. As a result, the net cost of attendance at four-year
public institutions for low-income students increased 12 percent from
2008 to 2012, after adjusting for inflation. For low-income students
attending public community colleges, the increase over the same time
period was 4 percent.[45]
Because
grants and tax credits rarely cover the full cost of college
attendance, most students — low-income students in particular — borrow
money. In 2008, roughly 70 percent of low-income students graduating
from a public four-year college or university had student loans
(compared with 40 percent of graduating students from wealthy
families).[46]
Rising costs mean that low-income students are likely borrowing more.
In 2008, the median debt level for a low-income student graduating
from a public four-year university was just under $17,600. By 2012,
that number had increased 17 percent to nearly $20,700.[47]
Funding Cuts Jeopardize Both Students’ and States’ Economic Futures
The
reduced college access and graduation rates that research suggests are
likely to result from budget cuts affect more than just the students,
because college attainment has grown increasingly important to
long-term economic outcomes for states and the nation.
Getting a
college degree is increasingly a pre-requisite for professional
success and for entry into the middle class or beyond. A young
college graduate earns $12,000 a year more annually than someone who did
not attend college.[48]
The benefits of academic attainment extend beyond
those who receive a degree; research suggests that the whole community
benefits when more residents have college degrees. Areas with highly
educated residents tend to attract strong employers who pay their
employees competitive wages. Those employees, in turn, buy goods and
services from others in the community, broadly benefitting the area’s
economy. Economist Enrico Moretti of the University of California at
Berkeley finds that as a result, the wages of workers at all levels of education are higher in metropolitan areas with high concentrations of college-educated residents.[49]
This finding implies that — even though not all good jobs require a
college degree — having a highly educated workforce can boost an area’s
economic success.
The economic importance of higher education
will continue to grow into the future. The Georgetown Center on
Education and the Workforce projects that by 2020, 65 percent of all
jobs will require at least some college education. That is up from 59
percent in 2007, 56 percent in 1992, and 28 percent in 1973.[50]
The
Georgetown Center further projects that, based on current trends —
without significant new investment in capacity — the nation’s education
system will not be able to keep pace with the rising demand for
educated workers. By 2020, the county’s system of higher education
will produce 5 million fewer college graduates than the labor market
will demand, Georgetown projects.[51]
The
increase in student debt in recent years also has important
implications for the broader economy. While debt is a crucial tool for
financing higher education, excessive debt can impose considerable
costs on both students and society as a whole. Research finds that
higher student debt levels are associated with lower rates of
homeownership among young adults; can create stresses that reduce the
probability of graduation, particularly for students from lower-income
families; and reduce the likelihood that graduates with majors in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics will go on to
graduate school.[52]
This
research suggests that states should strive to expand college access
and increase college graduation rates to help build a strong middle
class and develop the skilled workforce needed to compete in today’s
global economy. It suggests further that the severe higher education
funding cuts that states have made since the start of the recession
will make it more difficult to achieve those goals.
States’ Budget Choices Will Determine Whether They Can Successfully Rebuild Their Higher Education Systems
State
revenues are starting to improve, albeit slowly. Under current
trends, it will be many years before states can resume funding services
fully at pre-recession levels, or greater. It is imperative, however,
that states begin to reinvest today.
State lawmakers face the
simultaneous challenge of adequately funding higher education while
supporting other important state priorities. Elementary and secondary
education, like higher education, has been cut in most states in recent
years.[53]
Health care services require states’ continued support, given rising
health costs. The nation’s system of roads and bridges is
deteriorating and in need of new public investments, and states have
limited ability to cut back on public safety or human services without
risking real harm to communities. Those areas of spending account for
more than 80 percent of state and local government funding; the rest of
state budgets pay for environmental protection, the court system, and
other important areas that also are hard to cut without significant
negative consequences.
This means that to make significant
progress in renewing state investment in higher education, and to
prevent investment from sliding even further, states would need to
reject calls for tax cuts and instead consider options for new
revenues. These revenues could come from repealing ineffective tax
deductions, exemptions, and credits; rolling back past years’ tax cuts;
or raising certain tax rates.[54]
In May 2013, Minnesota state lawmakers voted to create a new income
tax bracket for the state’s richest households, repeal certain tax
breaks for companies operating outside the United States, and raise
revenues through changes to estate and gift taxes. The additional
revenue helped prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts
and allowed the state to put sizeable resources toward investments in
higher education, including enabling the state to freeze tuition for
its public colleges and universities, among other educational
investments.[55]
States
may also wish to consider more funding for higher education as an
alternative to new tax cuts. This may be particularly true in a
number of states that have made deep cuts to higher education funding
and where policymakers are proposing deep new tax cuts that would lock
in — even add to — those higher education cuts.
Florida
lawmakers, for example, have cut taxes by nearly $400 million in the
current 2014 legislative session with another $100 million in cuts
still under consideration. These cuts come at a time when Florida’s
higher education funding stands 30 percent below pre-recession levels,
and tuition at its public four-year colleges has increased by 66 percent
over the last five years. Other states that have made deep cuts to
higher education funding and yet are considering or have made sizeable
tax cuts this year include Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.
Tax cuts
are often sold as a recipe for economic growth. But to the extent
that tax cuts prevent investments in higher education that would
increase access to college, improve graduation rates, and reduce
student debt, their net effect could be a drag on the economy.
In
many cases, economic growth alone will not be sufficient to propel
higher education funding to previous levels any time soon. To rebuild
their states’ higher education systems, policymakers will need to raise
additional revenue and, at the very least, to avoid shortsighted tax
cuts that stifle higher education investments, making it harder to
develop the skilled workforce that states will need to compete in the
future.
Conclusion
States have cut higher education
funding deeply since the start of the recession. These cuts were in
part the result of a revenue collapse caused by the economic downturn,
but they also resulted from misguided policy choices. State
policymakers relied overwhelmingly on spending cuts to make up for lost
revenues. They could have lessened the need for higher education
funding cuts if they had used a more balanced mix of spending cuts and
revenue increases to balance their budgets.
To compensate for
lost state funding, public colleges have both steeply increased tuition
and pared back spending, often in ways that may compromise the quality
of the education and jeopardize student outcomes. Now is the time to
renew investment in higher education to promote college affordability
and quality.
Strengthening state investment in higher education
will require state policymakers to make the right tax and budget
choices over the coming years. A slow economic recovery and the need to
reinvest in other services that also have been cut deeply means that
many states will need to raise revenue to rebuild their higher
education systems. At the very least, states must avoid shortsighted
tax cuts, which would make it much harder for them to invest in higher
education, strengthen the skills of their workforce, and compete for the
jobs of the future.
1 comment:
Makes one wonder if all the trumpeting of current undergrads preferring on line instructional systems is nothing more than a means of avoiding the equally skyrocketing residency charges for their dorms.
Tuition is high but the fees are an even bigger surprise for students and families, not to mention books or electronic resources required by some courses. Depending on the course you enroll, individual course fees can run from a few buck to a few hundred bucks
We are just making higher ed less accessable for many and an economic burden for decades to come for those who take out the loans in order to attend.
Post a Comment