Vetoes
Gov. Huntsman vetoed 3 bills and a few lines from the budget. The budget lines simply reflect the fact that we pulled the money from the wrong source; we can correct that in a special session. As widely reported elsewhere, the 3 policy bills deal with parental rights, environmental litigation, and concurrent enrollment.
The first 2, no doubt, presented the Governor with difficult choices. On both those bills, I agreed with the intent of the sponsors but, like the Governor, had concerns that the bills addressed the issues in the best way. Ultimately, I concluded they did.
On the third bill, though, I don't understand the controversy. The Governor stated in his veto letter that "this bill would unfairly preclude some students from participating in concurrent enrollment classes." That's not how I read the bill.
The key language of 1 HB 151 reads that colleges can charge:
"partial tuition of up to $30 per credit hour for each concurrent enrollment course for which the student will receive college credit, paid directly to the institution of higher education that offers the credit."
The bill -- as I read it -- doesn't preclude anyone from participating in the classes; it only establishes that, if the student wants to receive the college credit, he might have to pay up to $30 for each credit hour (which is worth much more than that). This makes sense. There is a real cost to the colleges in providing the courses and credits. If the student receiving the credit does not pay for it, someone else will.
Who is that?
If not picked up by the beneficiary of the credit, the cost will be absorbed by the colleges or factored into the tuition of the college students (who did not benefit from the credit in question). To me, this doesn't make sense, especially in a year when higher education already was underfunded.
This past year, I worked with Dixie State College to expand its involvement in concurrent enrollment offerings. They did so -- at great benefit to local high school students and parents and at significant cost to the College. In a very straight-foward and appropriate way, Rep. Dayton's bill places the costs where they belong and, thus, encourages colleges to embrace concurrent enrollment and expand the number of courses offered.
The target audience for a veto override would be the Senate, where 20 votes are needed and only 17 were there for passage.
UPDATE (3/25/06): As I stated, higher education will not expand course offerings without the money. In which case, we all lose. UVSC, for example, has leaned heavily on its students to fund the institution's progress. The State only contributes about 55% of costs at UVSC, and the students pick up the rest. Why should UVSC lean on its students more -- and why should UVSC students be willing to pay more -- so that high school students can get a benefit without paying anything? Answer: they shouldn't, and they won't.
The first 2, no doubt, presented the Governor with difficult choices. On both those bills, I agreed with the intent of the sponsors but, like the Governor, had concerns that the bills addressed the issues in the best way. Ultimately, I concluded they did.
On the third bill, though, I don't understand the controversy. The Governor stated in his veto letter that "this bill would unfairly preclude some students from participating in concurrent enrollment classes." That's not how I read the bill.
The key language of 1 HB 151 reads that colleges can charge:
"partial tuition of up to $30 per credit hour for each concurrent enrollment course for which the student will receive college credit, paid directly to the institution of higher education that offers the credit."
The bill -- as I read it -- doesn't preclude anyone from participating in the classes; it only establishes that, if the student wants to receive the college credit, he might have to pay up to $30 for each credit hour (which is worth much more than that). This makes sense. There is a real cost to the colleges in providing the courses and credits. If the student receiving the credit does not pay for it, someone else will.
Who is that?
If not picked up by the beneficiary of the credit, the cost will be absorbed by the colleges or factored into the tuition of the college students (who did not benefit from the credit in question). To me, this doesn't make sense, especially in a year when higher education already was underfunded.
This past year, I worked with Dixie State College to expand its involvement in concurrent enrollment offerings. They did so -- at great benefit to local high school students and parents and at significant cost to the College. In a very straight-foward and appropriate way, Rep. Dayton's bill places the costs where they belong and, thus, encourages colleges to embrace concurrent enrollment and expand the number of courses offered.
The target audience for a veto override would be the Senate, where 20 votes are needed and only 17 were there for passage.
UPDATE (3/25/06): As I stated, higher education will not expand course offerings without the money. In which case, we all lose. UVSC, for example, has leaned heavily on its students to fund the institution's progress. The State only contributes about 55% of costs at UVSC, and the students pick up the rest. Why should UVSC lean on its students more -- and why should UVSC students be willing to pay more -- so that high school students can get a benefit without paying anything? Answer: they shouldn't, and they won't.
posted by steve u. at 3/23/2006
Subscribe
17 Comments:
Steve, it looks to me like the governor's concern was with the absence of a fee waiver for low-income students. Was a fee waiver ever discussed? Would the house and senate be opposed to a fee waiver?
The waiver idea kind of makes sense to me. $90 a class may not seem like much to some of us, but there are families in Utah who don't have an extra $90 for tuition fees.
The fee waiver concern confuses what we do in K-12 and higher education. Fee waivers respond to the state-constitutional obligation to provide a free public education and, thus, present a concern for k-12 education, not colleges.
HB 151 does not address who can attend the classes (that is the public school issue -- and, yes, we must make sure all students can attend, regardless of cost). Every K-12 student can attend.
Instead, HB 151 addresses a different issue -- who will cover the colleges' costs of determining and awarding the college credit (a higher ed issue).
Even were HB 151 to pass, limiting the optional fee to $30 would represent a huge reduction to the normal cost of a credit hour. Colleges shouldn't be forced to give an even greater subsidy. The result of doing nothing, of course, isn't to force the colleges to do anything; instead, at a time when colleges already are piling costs onto students' tuition, colleges will not add these costs into tuition and they will not dip deeply into their budgets. The result is that the courses simply will not be offered. So, without the bill, we largely don't need to worry about anyone stretching to fund college credits; many potential credits simply will not be available to anyone.
Thanks for clarifying this issue. I also couldn't understand why the governor vetoed all three bills.
My rep. was at my caucus meeting the other night. He disagrees with you on the way to do a tax cut. (He said you were simply a water carrier for the leadership.) He thinks we ought to do a rebate. He says that the people complaining about the administration of a rebate overblow the cost. In fact, he thinks we ought to do a rebate each year that we have a surplus.
I'm a little upset with him. I want a permanent tax cut, not something that has to be cobbled together every year. But I do agree with his assertion that any tax cut should be a real tax cut and not just smoke-and-mirrors maneuvering that will simply push the taxes to a different level of government.
Concurrent enrollment should be preserved for sure. It saves people a LOT Of money in the long run. It is one of the best educational programs around.
Scott,
Huh? The Speaker and Majority Leader are in favor of the Gov's plan. So, I couldn't really be carrying their water.
I guess you could say I am carrying water for the Whip on this one. When it became obvious that a true flat tax would fall . . . well . . . flat, the Whip (me) consistently (through the tax reform task force and the session) advocated shaving the top rate. So, it is my very own position that I hope is shared by many others who believe it does not make sense to decouple ourselves from the federal system for the nips and tucks of H3.
But colleges have "fee waivers" for low-income stundents too, just under a different name: Pell Grants. There are ways low-income students can finance a university education, but to my knowledge, none can be applied to concurrent enrollment courses. It seems a bit silly to tell students their (higher) costs will be covered if they take the course again in college, but we can't offer support for the less expensive concurrent enrollment courses. It is less expensive for the State of Utah to fund concurrent enrollment than to fund state universities so students can retake the same courses.
The veto request from the State Board of Education came in part because the costs HB 151 was intended to cover were fully funded by the Legislature under a different line item.
Kudos to higher education for investigating a program of scholarships/fee waivers.
But colleges have "fee waivers" for low-income stundents too, just under a different name: Pell Grants. There are ways low-income students can finance a university education, but to my knowledge, none can be applied to concurrent enrollment courses. It seems a bit silly to tell students their (higher) costs will be covered if they take the course again in college, but we can't offer support for the less expensive concurrent enrollment courses. It is less expensive for the State of Utah to fund concurrent enrollment than to fund state universities so students can retake the same courses.
The veto request from the State Board of Education came in part because the costs HB 151 was intended to cover were fully funded by the Legislature under a different line item.
Kudos to higher education for investigating a program of scholarships/fee waivers.
Having spent part of my career working in tax administration (before re-education to do software development), I agree that it would not be a good idea to decouple from the federal system. I agree with shaving the rates of the existing system. I don't think my rep. will support that in the special session (at least at the beginning), but I hope the majority will vote for it.
Steve - Your comments on HB151 on right on! High school students can take concurrent enrollment with NO cost if they want only high school credit. If the want college credit, they pay up to $30/credit hour. Most states that offer concurrent enrollment charge half tuition - and that is still a bargain and helps out the poor student the most. It is sad that students on the college campus have tuition increases to keep high school CE free. The funding provided by the legislature this year is beneficial - but inadequate. The cost to the colleges for providing CE is now $10/credit hour - so CE will be cut as a financial necessity - and to avoid any more threat to the accreditation of the colleges who cannot absorb so many unfunded headcount.
Hey Steve U - If I remember correctly, this bill was introduced at SLCC at a press conference that included the endorsements of the Higher Education Commissioner, a letter of endorsement from the Senate President, and the endorsements of all the college presidents. Does the Gov. realize that??? (does that matter?)
Tom,
Thanks for commenting. It's good to hear from you. Two points: (1)Pell Grants are federal, not state; the State subsidy is the reduced tuition (about a 65% reduction) that all students receive (which is reduced when college students are required to pick up the costs of high school students receiving college credit) and (2) by no means did we fully fund the costs of concurrent enrollment; we funded K-12's portion and left higher education holding the bag.
Anonymous mentioned the support of the Higher Education Commissioner and the College Presidents, but they only represent one side of the picture. The bottom line for me is that kids in higher socioeconomic areas will get the college credit for next to nothing and probably should pay for it and kids in areas where the parents can't afford to pay for the credit, CAN take the class, but don't get college credit for it.
Maybe the intent of the measure wasn't to perpetuate the divide between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS, but that's what it does.
Just as a side note, I've always wondered how it could possibly cost $30 a credit hour for credit to be posted. Maybe someone could let me know how it costs so much to add a record to a data file. It also seems like it would cost more for the first credit (need to data enter all of the information about a student), but subsequent credits (especially when it only involves typing a 3 instead of a 1 in the credit hour column) would theoretically be cheaper. Maybe there's something I just don't get. I would love it if someone could explain how all of this money is used or required.
Mike
Mike,
The optional charge is intended to cover actual costs. Because a college is backing the course, its accreditation is on the line; thus, it needs to make sure the course is up to snuff. At times, this involves a lot of involvement (maybe even supplying the instructor).
If it covers instructors' costs, I could understand that . . . I'll have to talk to a concurrent enrollment teacher I happen to know and see if she is "supplied" in anyway. Because she is a public school (not state college) teacher, I didn't think she was, but I could be wrong. Outside of that, I still wonder what "actual costs" are used for. I guess there could be a college faculty member paid for coordinating, but the cost still sounds high to me.
Steve, I started to response to your comments, and correct some misinformation supplied by other commenters (especially the anonymous poster who suggested the cost of CE is $10/credit, and colleges never see any of it).
It got to be too long, so I turned it into a blog post.
Your response is, of course, welcome.
Mike and Tom,
I've moved the discussion back to the front page. Specifically to your point, Tom, the colleges are tasked with providing a college-like or college-equal experience. There is cost in ensuring that -- at times even providing teachers for the classes.
Oops. I meant "specifically to your point, MIKE."
<< Home