A PASCU Chapter at Each PASSHE University - Part 19

A Proposed New Kind of University System

We concluded the last blog post with these words:

 
“A new name will be needed to describe this proposed new kind of university system, but its statutory purpose would be clear: ‘To provide high quality education at the lowest possible cost to the students.’”
 
Note that the statutory purpose of this ‘proposed new kind of university system’ is precisely the statutory purpose which Act 188 has been mandating for the PASSHE system of fourteen universities since 1983!
 
But although the new system of universities being proposed here would operate under the same statutory purpose as the current PASSHE system of universities, it is important to note that while the purposes of the two systems would be identical, the results obtained by those two systems would be very different.
 
As shown in previous blog posts, the current PASSHE system has failed since 2002 to deliver the Act 188 statutory purpose of providing ‘high quality education at the lowest possible cost to the students.’  Those same blog posts showed that this dual failure stems from a politically-motivated policy decision by the Board of Governors to remain “fixated on maintaining the lowest possible tuition, i.e., sticker price, when the law, Act 188, explicitly requires a focus on the lowest possible cost to the students, i.e., bottom line.”
 
Recall Mark Twain’s dictum: “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.”  And so it is in this case as well.

That one egregious and misguided failure, substituting “tuition” for “cost to the students,” has had at least three tragic consequences: 1) the loss of half of the educational quality gains recorded by PASSHE over the 19 years prior to 2002; 2) the severe financial distress reported by at least five of the fourteen PASSHE universities in 2013-14; and 3) the passing on of crushing student-loan debt to students from less affluent families, while simultaneously granting unneeded State subsidies to students from more affluent families.

 

Why the Proposed New System Will Never Be Called a “State-Related System”

In Pennsylvania, the term “State-related University” has a very specific meaning which goes back to the times when that status was conferred by the State upon by the four institutions now holding that title.
 
Three of the four current “State-related Universities”—Pitt, Temple and Lincoln—were all totally private institutions prior to becoming State-related.  Penn State, on the other hand, is the Land Grant University in Pennsylvania and has been receiving State funding since its founding in 1855.

As applied to the three formerly private universities, the designation “State-related” describes a novel relationship with the State in which the universities agree to provide limited educational services to State citizens in exchange for limited State funding for which, as private institutions, they would not be eligible.    
 
When applied to Penn State the designation “State-related” appears redundant since, as the Land Grant University in Pennsylvania, it has been receiving State funding since long before becoming “State-related.”

One clear aspect of “State-related status” is the fact that, in exchange for the title and the State funding that comes with it, all four institutions apparently agreed to provide one-third of the governance seats on their Boards of Trustees to elected officials, or appointees of those elected officials.
 
The initial agreement between the State and the four State-related universities was reportedly this:  The State would provide one third of the universities’ operating revenues in exchange for one-third of the seats on the respective universities’ governing boards.
 
In the 50 years since State-related status was first granted, the State has continued to control one-third of the Trustees’ seats at these universities.  However, the State’s funding share of their annual operating budgets has fallen well below one-third and now lies in a range at or below the 15% funding level.
 

The Pennsylvania Constitution

 
A key reason why the new system will never be called a “State-related” system stems from the Pennsylvania Constitution which contains the following provisions under Article III, LEGISLATION:   

“Public School System
Section 14.

The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.”
 
This constitutional provision for ‘public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth’ extends beyond K12 to include ‘public higher education’ in the State.  The PASSHE System of 14 ‘State-owned’ universities represents tangible evidence for Legislative compliance with the provision of Section 14. 
 
“Public School Money Not Available to Sectarian Schools
Section 15.
 
No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.”
 
This constitutional provision appears at first glance to block the transfer of State appropriation to “sectarian,” i.e., “religiously-affiliated” schools.  But actually, it only blocks the transfer of ‘money raised for the support of the public schools.’  This constitutional provision does not rule out State appropriation being transferred to sectarian schools as long as those funds were not “raised for the support of public schools!”  For many years, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided IAG (Institutional Assistance Grants) to every college and university in Pennsylvania, including religiously-affiliated institutions, and apparently, the specific language of Section 15 of the Constitution was not violated by that practice.     

To be continued.