Concurrent Enrollment Redux
Tom Gregory has a thoughtful response to my earlier post on concurrent enrollment.
A few quibbles:
(1) The distinction between who pays for high school fees waivers (State) and Pell Grants ("college fee waivers," as Tom calls them) (Feds) can't be shrugged off by policymakers; a very likely result of moving the State down the road of higher education fee waivers would be a shift of appropriations from public ed to higher ed, a result I doubt Tom favors.
(2) Either institutions are fully-funded for concurrent enrollment or they are not. UVSC, which provides just under 20% of the concurrent enrollment in the state, subsidizes this effort at about $250,000/year. I'd call that holding the bag. Also, the costs per institution vary because of differences in what the institutions have to do; in some areas (possibly Rich and San Juan) the colleges have to provide the instructors, which costs the institutions more.
Areas of agreement:
(1) Concurrent enrollment is wonderful. It delivers college credits at a great savings, and it gets more kids thinking about college.
(2) We should facilitate higher education opportunities for students who are poor (and, in my opinion, first-generation college students).
My rub is that in much of the discussion about this issue, I see little effort to look for solutions beyond government coffers. I'm not sure the equation being applied works (e.g., some cost = fewer poor kids getting concurrent enrollment credits). If we think the only answer to tough issues is to reach further into government coffers, then, yes, the equation likely is valid. But, who says that's the only option? I was talking with one Washington County resident who said he would gladly pick up the anticipated concurrent enrollment costs of any Washington County student who asked him. Why not at least explore such options?
Take home:
The veto likely will stand. We'll make another run at a solution next year. In the meanwhile, good discussions are going on. I've had several good ones, and have a few more meetings scheduled in the next week. This is the process. Hopefully, it leads to a result that will responsibly promote the best interests and grandest opportunities of our children. As Tom and others point out, with the money that was appropriated, the sky won't fall this year. But, we do need to figure this out, so that this great program can grow.
A few quibbles:
(1) The distinction between who pays for high school fees waivers (State) and Pell Grants ("college fee waivers," as Tom calls them) (Feds) can't be shrugged off by policymakers; a very likely result of moving the State down the road of higher education fee waivers would be a shift of appropriations from public ed to higher ed, a result I doubt Tom favors.
(2) Either institutions are fully-funded for concurrent enrollment or they are not. UVSC, which provides just under 20% of the concurrent enrollment in the state, subsidizes this effort at about $250,000/year. I'd call that holding the bag. Also, the costs per institution vary because of differences in what the institutions have to do; in some areas (possibly Rich and San Juan) the colleges have to provide the instructors, which costs the institutions more.
Areas of agreement:
(1) Concurrent enrollment is wonderful. It delivers college credits at a great savings, and it gets more kids thinking about college.
(2) We should facilitate higher education opportunities for students who are poor (and, in my opinion, first-generation college students).
My rub is that in much of the discussion about this issue, I see little effort to look for solutions beyond government coffers. I'm not sure the equation being applied works (e.g., some cost = fewer poor kids getting concurrent enrollment credits). If we think the only answer to tough issues is to reach further into government coffers, then, yes, the equation likely is valid. But, who says that's the only option? I was talking with one Washington County resident who said he would gladly pick up the anticipated concurrent enrollment costs of any Washington County student who asked him. Why not at least explore such options?
Take home:
The veto likely will stand. We'll make another run at a solution next year. In the meanwhile, good discussions are going on. I've had several good ones, and have a few more meetings scheduled in the next week. This is the process. Hopefully, it leads to a result that will responsibly promote the best interests and grandest opportunities of our children. As Tom and others point out, with the money that was appropriated, the sky won't fall this year. But, we do need to figure this out, so that this great program can grow.
posted by steve u. at 3/29/2006
Subscribe
2 Comments:
I agree with looking for solutions outside of government funding. This type of thing could also add market pressure to higher-ed institutions. Some feel that these institutions should be exempt from market pressures, but that scenario has not served us very well. It's worth bringing this into the debate.
Steve ~ appreciate your continued dialogue. I spoke w/UVSC officials yesterday and was told that over 120 of the current 400 sections offered by UVSC for CE are being reviewed for elimination. Charging a partial tuition that is about the same cost as an AP test is a much better option that losing CE all together! I still have a bias in favor of making CE, AP, on-line classes and every other higher-ed option available to high school students. I also have a real desire to let the high school student stay in high school while high school age. Hopefully, we can be successful on this bill next year. (M. Dayton)
<< Home