PASSHE: Where Politics Defeats Economics Every Day
The final paragraph of last week’s blog post included the
following sentence:
“The sad truth about PASSHE’s tuition levels in recent years
is that they were decided upon not by economic but by purely political
considerations.” (Emphasis added.)
PASSHE’s
14 universities include Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East
Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville,
Shippensburg, Slippery Rock and West Chester.In the above quote, I was asserting the critical importance of basing PASSHE tuition levels on economic rather than political considerations. In support of that assertion, it is very helpful to define those terms.
The Definition of Economics
According to Merriam-Webster, “economics” is “a science concerned with the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought.”
The Definition of Politics
According
to Merriam-Webster, “politics”
involves “activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a
government or getting and keeping power in a government.” (Emphasis
added.)
PASSHE Economics
In the case of PASSHE, the economics of tuition levels should
serve the financial needs of both the seller of education (the PASSHE
universities) and the consumers of education (PASSHE students and
parents).
The Universities: From the point of view of the fourteen
PASSHE universities, a reasonable tuition level is one enabling the
universities to cover the actual costs of providing that education or, more
precisely, one that allows the PASSHE universities to deliver their statutory
purpose—“High quality education at the lowest possible cost to the students”—while
remaining financially solvent in the process.
The Students and Parents: From the point of view of PASSHE
students and parents, a reasonable tuition is one that enables the family to acquire
a high quality education at a purchase price—i.e., bottom line cost—that falls
within their financial capabilities, and where the “bottom line cost” to a
given student is defined as the university “tuition sticker price” minus
the “tuition discount” to that particular student.
For students from families with limited financial resources,
the actual university tuition sticker price is totally irrelevant. Such families can either afford the bottom
line cost of attendance, or not. And if
they can’t afford the bottom line cost, they certainly can’t afford the tuition
sticker price which is always higher and in many cases much higher.
So although the economics of PASSHE tuition levels should
serve the financial needs of both the seller of education (the universities)
and the purchaser (students and parents), there is compelling evidence that the
financial needs of both the PASSHE universities and the PASSHE students are
being ignored by the PASSHE Board of Governors.
That is, PASSHE economics has been taking a back seat to PASSHE
politics. More on this subject next
time.
PASSHE Politics
As
to the kinds of activities that fall under the umbrella of “PASSHE Politics,” the
Merriam-Webster definition specifies
two very different kinds: 1) Activities that relate to influencing the actions
and policies of government; and 2) Activities in regards to getting and keeping
power in government.
It
is clear that the first activity just cited—influencing the actions and polices
of government— includes actions that would generally be taken by the citizenry
in an attempt to help shape the actions and policies of government that affect
them and their families. In the case of
PASSHE, this aspect of politics could manifest itself in a grass roots effort
on the part of PASSHE students, parents and alumni to shape public policy so as
to make the PASSHE educational experience more aligned with their best
interests.
It
is equally clear that the second activity just cited— getting and keeping power
in a government—includes actions most likely to be taken by PASSHE’s elected
and appointed officials who control the PASSHE system office in Harrisburg and
the fourteen PASSHE universities. Evidence
shows these officials engaging in activities in support of the never-ending
quest of getting and keeping power in government.
An Enthusiasm Mismatch
Historically, PASSHE’s Majority Financial Stakeholders—the
hundreds of thousands of PASSHE students, parents, alumni donors and their
families, who provide 75% of PASSHE’s annual revenue—have not yet been motivated to organize themselves
politically to undo the PASSHE policies that are harming them.
But unfortunately, the elected and appointed officials who
control PASSHE are very organized in seeing to it that their efforts to get and
keep power within PASSHE remain both successful and unchallenged. So as long as this enthusiasm mismatch continues, PASSHE
politics will continue to defeat PASSHE economics.
What PASSHE Politics
Defeating PASSHE Economics Looks Like
In simple terms Act 188 says—when it
comes to funding—that: 1) the Governor and the Legislature get to decide how
much State support the Commonwealth can afford to provide to PASSHE in any
given year; and 2) The Board of Governors then
gets to decide how high the tuition rates must be set in order “To do and perform generally
all of those things necessary and required to accomplish the role and objectives of the
System,” as the BOG is legally required to do by Section
20-2006-A(a)(15) of Act 188.¹ And,
presumably, accomplishing the Act 188 statutory purpose of the PASSHE
universities: To provide “High quality education at the lowest possible cost to
the students,” would be one of the first “things necessary and required to
accomplish the role and objectives of the System.”
But although the Board of Governors has
the legal authority, from Section 20-2006-A(a)(11) of Act 188, “To fix the
levels of tuition fees,” and despite the fact that the law does not require or even mention any role for the Governor
of the State in the tuition-setting process, the Board of Governors has during a
recent 20-year period anxiously awaited—together with the 14 PASSHE university
presidents, I included—the sitting Governor’s word as to the maximum allowable
tuition rate increase for that year!
Why would 20 different Boards of
Governors with slightly varying membership defer every year for 20 years to
five different governors, both Democrat and Republican—when it came to one of
their most important sworn duties—to set tuition rates in such a way as to
provide “high quality education at the lowest possible cost to the
students?” Why would they let the
Governor decide that when the law, Act 188, explicitly gives that
responsibility not to the Governor of the State, but to the Board of Governors?
While the reason must clearly be
political—since it always involved
the Governor—it is just as clearly not partisan—since
it involved governors from both parties serving roughly equal time in office in
the 20-year period between 1992 and 2012.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment