Tag Archives: tuition policy

U.S. Senate Committee Holds Hearing on G.I. Bill Implementation

Posted on by

Last week the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs held a hearing on the implementation of the new Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.

The focus of the hearing was to identify problems encountered to date with the implementation of the legislation and learn how they were addressed. In addition, committee members focused on understanding what needs to occur to ensure the benefits are delivered in a timely and accurate way.

Those who testsified at the hearing highlighted several key issues with regard to the  implemenation of the legislation including:

  • Long delays
  • Financial strain while waiting for education benefits
  • Difficulty for higher education institutions to accomodate veterans while waiting for funding
  • Variations in tuition benefits by state and student enrollment
  • Short-turn around for implementation of legislation

Some of the solutions that were taken to address these problems included the issuance of emergency advance payments and redirection of staffing within the Veterans’ Administration (VA) to processing claims.

In addition, the Veterans’ Administration has partnered with Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic to develop an end-to-end claims processing solution that utilizes rules-based, industry-standard technologies for the delivery of education benefits.  This is the VA’s long-term strategy for implementation of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.

College Savings Foundation 2010 Survey of Youth Supports 529 Savings Plans

Posted on by

A recent survey of 500 high school students aged 16-17 has been published by the College Savings Foundation (CSF). CSF is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that represents investment and financial interests that focus on promoting 529 college investment plans. Investors in 529 plans enjoy various tax benefits, and contributions may only be used for educational costs.

The study demonstrates high school students’ college plans, savings strategies, funding expectations and parental involvement, and paints a picture of a new class of college students ready to shoulder the financial burden of their educations. This commitment is demonstrated by the 45 percent of students surveyed who have already begun to save for college on their own, 43 percent of whom have saved between $1,000 and $5,000. In addition, 66 percent of students expect to take out loans to cover costs, with 40 percent of them expecting to borrow a quarter to a half of their costs and another 30 percent who expect to borrow more than a half of educational expenses.

Financial aid also figured into future students’ perceptions of educational costs, with 85 percent planning to definitely or probably take advantage of financial aid and scholarships to meet their educational goals. Financial aid eligibility can be affected by 529 plans, which count as assets for dependent students applying for aid.

With the majority of those surveyed indicating plans to attend a public institution or community college, the next wave of college students will follow their predecessors, relying on a combination of state and federal funding sources on top of family contributions.

The study, which does not correlate responses with students’ socioeconomic status or race/ethnicity, is clearly in support of the CSF agenda to promote 529 accounts. Currently, this type of account is utilized by a particular portion of the population. According to United States Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, “only 5 percent of families with children in the middle of the income distribution have 529 accounts, while nearly one third of those in the top 5 percent of the distribution have them.”

Taking into consideration the difficult financial decisions Americans are faced with today, it is unlikely that middle to low-income families will take advantage of 529 accounts, which have recently come under scrutiny as investments underwent a challenging year. CSF’s agenda in D.C. to shift the responsibility of college funding to money paid into savings accounts rather than debt payments after college leaves out the commitment of state funding and state and federal financial aid, all of which are in danger of further deterioration.

House Higher Education Holds Work Session on Tuition Policy

Posted on by

This morning the House Higher Education Committee held an interim planning session regarding future work on tuition policy.

In a roundtable styled discussion members of the House Higher Education Committee joined in conversation with representatives from each of the four-year public baccalaureate institutions, the Washington Student Association, the Council of Faculty Representatives, the Washington Education Association, the Council of Presidents, American Federation of Teachers, League of Education Voters, Joint Legislatiave Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) staff, and Higher Education Coordinating Board staff.

The conversation began with an overview of the upcoming JLARC study of a transparent link between revenues, expenditures, and performance outcome measures in higher education. The study, directed to the Committee through passage of ESHB 2344 last session, requires JLARC, in a nutshell, to identify the links between funding sources, performance, and the state’s strategic plan for higher education.

The objectives of the study are grouped into categories of expenditures, revenue, performance outcome measures, and linkages. A preliminary report will be presented by staff at the September 2010 JLARC meeting and the final report at the October 2010 JLARC meeting.

The summary of the upcoming JLARC study provided a foundation for further discussion by those present this morning. The conversation moved from the study to the structure or focus of ongoing discussions between now and the 2011 legislative discussion around performance agreements, funding, tuition, and financial aid.

Members of the Higher Education Committee expressed their goal of wanting to have a healthy higher education system and argued that the JLARC study will serve as a cornerstone of this discussion. In other words, legislators expressed that the state budget is not going to get easier and the pressure on higher education will likely increase with regard to funding and hopes are riding high that the study will provide new insights.

Members also expressed the need to continue a discussion that places into a single conversation policies that impact tuition, financial aid, and cost management at institutions. Representative Anderson, Ranking Minority Leader on the Committee, shared that life has to change at institutiions and life and the commitment by the state has to change not just for the immediate future but for the long haul.

Those representing four-year institutions, faculty, and students focused the conversation on the future of performance agreements in Washington. It was widely recognized that the performance agreements submitted in 2009 reflected very different times and it is unclear how new performance agreements would integrate declining funds.

Rep. Wallace, Chair of the Committee, stated that performance agreements must reflect where the state is at any given time and where the state is headed. This was echoed by some institutional representatives who agreed that a performance agreement must work both in good and bad times.

Emphasis within this conversation was placed on the notion of an “agreement”. This reflects the frustration by institutions and some policymakers that a conversation and an agreement never emerged from the initial submission of performance agreements to a state committee.  Policymakers are concerned that an agreement may make promises that are unable to be met because of the state context or because the tie the hands of future legislatures.

Institutions are concerned that future performance agreements will result in the same ending that happened with the first submission – there was no conversation with policymakers and no process to lead to an agreement between institutions and the state.

In the end the conversation did not go much beyond initial discussions of performance agreements and the role of funding, tuition, and financial aid within a performance agreement framework.

However, the conversation did serve to kick-off interim discussions regarding higher education policy in Washington and is likely to be the first of many meetings between now and January 2011.

More Bills Move Forward in Process

Posted on by

Another legislative deadline passed today. Fiscal committees in each chamber must have moved legislation from the opposite chamber out of committee and to the floor.

The remainder of session will focus on floor action in each chamber as bills are moved either to the other chamber for concurrence or to the Governor for her signature.

Since Friday a handful of bills of interest to Evergreen have passed both chambers and are now headed to the Governor for her signature – Senate Bills 5041, 6467, and 6367.

House Bill 5041 creates a statewide program to increase state procurement contracts with veteran-owned businesses. The bill encourages encouraged to state agencies to award 3 percent of all procurement contracts under $35,000 to veteran-owned businesses. The bill passed the House with a vote of 94-0.

Senate Bill 6467 allows the University of Washington, Washington State University, Central Washington University, Western Washington University, Eastern Washington University, or community and technical colleges in existence in 1942 to confer honorary degrees upon persons who were students at those institutions in 1942, but did not graduate because they were ordered into an internment camp. An honorary degree may also berequested by relatives for deceased qualified persons. The bill passed the House with a vote of 96-0.

Senate Bill 6367 allows state agencies to provide an Internet address and link on the agency’s website to a specific record request in addition to providing a record in response to a public records request. If the requester informs the agency that he or she cannot access records through the Internet, the agency must provide hard copies or allow the requester to view copies on the agency computer.  The bill passed the House with a vote of 96-0.

Two bills of interest to Evergreen – SB 5295 and HB 2519 – passed their respective chambers and now are awaiting for the other chamber to concur with changes made to the bills.

Senate Bill 5295 addresses unanimous recommendations from the Public Records Exemption Accountability Committee.

House Bill 2519  among other changes the bill requires state institutions of higher education to waive all tuition, service fees and activity fees for children and spouses of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and Washington State Patrol Officers, that die or become totally disabled in theline of duty while employed by any public law enforcement agency or full-time or volunteer fire department in Washington. 

Higher Education Policy Committees Adjourn; More Bills Move Forward

Posted on by

The Senate deadline to move House policy bills either to an appropriations committee or the Senate floor is this Friday.

Despite this deadline, the  Senate Higher Education & Workforce Development Committee took final action on five bills this afternoon and adjourned for the session.

The Senate Higher Education & Development Committee passed two bills of interest to Evergreen. House Bill 2854 establishes eligibility criteria for the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) created in the 2009 legislative session.

Students eligible for HELP must meet the following criteria:

  • An annual family income, adjusted for family size, that is no greater than 130% of the Washington median family income.
  • Completion of the FAFSA.
  • Be a Washington resident.
  • Not enrolled in Theology as a field of study.
  • Enrolled at least half-time in an aid-eligible certificiate or degree program up to and including graduate and professional degrees.
  • Maintain satisfactory academic progress determined by the attending institution.
  • In good standing, not delinquent or in default, on federal and state student loans.
  • Current on child-support obligations.

The Committee also took action on House Bill 2930 in the afternoon. HB 2930 directs the Higher Education Coordinating Board to give priority to selecting Future Teachers Scholarship recipients to those individuals who are seeking specialty endorsements in math as well as individuals who are uniquely qualified to help schools address the achievement gap.

Evergreen supported the legislation since its introduction and continues to encourage policymakers to keep in mind students seeking endorsements in English Language Learners and special education.

The Committee amended HB 2930 with clarifying language. Specifically, the amendment clarifies that the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) is not required to award loan repayments to all program participants. In addition, it stipulates that the HECB must begin loan repayment for the Alternate Route Program upon documentation of federal student loan indebtedness and completion of the first year of teaching service.

In the House, policy committees diligently worked to move Senate bills forward in the process right up to yesterday’s deadline.

The House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee took action on Senate Bill 6196. SB 6196 grants military leave for required military duty, training, or drills including those in the National Guard and clarifies that an officer or a state or local government employee can only be charged military leave for the days he/she is regularly scheduled to work.  

The House Education committe took action on Senate Bill 6696. SB 6696 comprises several policy changes to K-12 to make Washington more competitive for Race to the Top dollars, including policies and structural changes in the areas of school and teacher evaluation, assessment, and preparation.

The Committee amended Senate Bill 6696 is several ways:

  • Requires all educator preparation program providers approved by the PESB to adhere to the same standards and comply with the same requirements.
  • Requires the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to select up to three community colleges to offer a BA plus teaching certificate in a subject matter shortage area. Specifies that programs are subject to degree and certificate program approval procedures by the SBCTC, HECB, and PESB.
  • Clarifies that candidates in all alternative route programs have their performance evaluated by both their mentor and the preparation program supervisor before moving to less supervision.
  • Repeals several additional sections of law pertaining to student teaching centers and the partnership grant aspects of the alternative route program.
  • Removes a duplicate section pertaining to the HECB and needs assessments for the educator workforce.
  • Declares that an essential aspect of overall education reform is reform in state financing for Basic Education, both in the way that funds are distributed and the overall level of state support to school districts.
  • Sets forth in statute baseline values for Basic Education funding, as recommended by a technical working group and the Quality Education Council, for the prototypical school funding formula adopted in 2009 legislation,effective September 1, 2011. Modifies various prototypical school formula elements and allocation categories.
  • Increases the maintenance, supplies, and operating costs (MSOC) factors in the funding formula to a total of $1,082.76 per student over a three-year period.
  • Provides a K-3 class size allocation of 15.0 students per classroom teacher, to be phased in over a five-year period starting with high poverty schools.
  • Requires continued incremental phase-in of full-day kindergarten according to the statutory schedule, with full implementation in 2018.
  • Implements a new pupil transportation funding formula as of 2011 rather than 2013, and states that full funding of the new pupil transportation formula is to be phased in over a three-year period.
  • Restores a requirement that school districts maintain a minimum staffing ratio for Basic Education of 46 Certificated Instructional Staff per 1,000 students rather than repealing the requirement as of 2011.
  • Requires a report from a Compensation Working Group by June 30, 2012, rather than December 1, 2012, and changes the lead agency to OSPI. Starts a Local Finance Working Group immediately with a report due November 30, 2010. Expands tasks of the Group.
  • Continues the Funding Formula Technical Working Group to monitor implementation of the formula and provide technical advice to the Quality Education Council.
  • Directs the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to calculate a savings from improvement in graduation rates and requires OSPI to publish this in an annual report.
  • Directs OSPI to implement an internet portal displaying the prototype school allocations compared to actual allocations, by building.

House Higher Education Hears Public Testimony on Tuition Bill

Posted on by

Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6562 received a public hearing in the House Higher Education committee after a heated debate in caucus regarding whether or not to enter executive session before the public hearing.

First to testify in support of the bill was the original sponsor, Senator Derek Kilmer, who reiterated the importance of accountability and affordability in tuition policy, and expressed sympathy for students who graduate with high amounts of student debt. He stressed the fact that the bill did not propose unfettered tuition setting authority at the institutions, and that the intent of the bill was to continue a conversation about the future of higher education in the state. He also emphasized the aspect of quality in the conversation, and warned the committee members not to lose the focus on quality of education.

Also testifying in support of the bill were representatives from the business sector, who expressed their concern that degree production continue as outlined in the state’s master plan, and highlighted the role of higher education in aiding economic recovery. The Tacoma Tribune also testified in support, citing the importance of protecting the middle class in the new tuition model. Finally, a representative from the Council of Faculty Representatives conveyed his concerns, which echoed previous concerns of students and faculty regarding access and quality in education.

Testifying in opposition to the bill were several students from the affected institutions, who lobbied to keep tuition-setting authority in the legislature in order to emphasize the body’s responsibility to students and families. The issue of middle class affordability was reiterated, and students argued that while tuition increases may be inevitable, they should also be predictable.

Chair Wallace emphasized that the problem did not lie in tuition but in state allocation, and that the conversation should be anchored in the need of the state to adequately fund educations. With that, the hearing was adjourned without action on the bill.

Senate Passes Tuition Policy Bill

Posted on by

Only an hour before midnight, the Senate passed Senate Bill 6562 – a.k.a. the tuition policy bill – with a vote of 29-19.

The debate on the floor with regard to SB 6562 did not cut along Democratic and Republican lines but along much more subtle differences in principles and policies with regard to the future of higher education in Washington.

Senator Kilmer, sponsor of the bill, shared the thoughts of many of the Senators who supported the bill with regard to quality and affordability.  Kilmer stated that the bill provides greater predictability for institutions and students by setting tuition limits in the future, accountability for the state and Washingtonians through the requirement of institutional performance agreements, and affordability by off-setting the tuition increases permitted through additional commitments to financial aid for low- and middle-income students.

Senator Schoesler spoke in opposition of the bill arguing that the accountability provided in the bill is not enough to ensure affordability, predictability, and accountability within higher education. Schoesler, who summed up many of the same concerns others who opposed the bill shared, argued that the best policy and the best financial aid program is low-tuition which allows for a wider door to be open to a post-secondary education for Washingtonians.

Senators spoke to the bill citing concerns with regard to the potential impact on student mix and the missions’ of Washington’s institutions of higher learning. Others expressed frustration that the emergence of this bill comes because the state has not kept its commitment to higher education through strong funding. Finally, Senators across both aisles gave props to the efforts of students this afternoon and this session to be heard with regard to tuition policy.

Two amendments were proposed on the floor. The first amendment, which passed, was a technical amendment that clarified the inclusion of graduate students as only “resident” graduate students.

The second amendment sponsored by Sen. Pflug, which failed, would have made tuition setting authority and waivers contingent upon full funding of the state work study program.

Senate Bill 6562 now goes to the House for further consideration.

Senate Ways and Means Marathon – Tuition Policy and Teacher Preparation

Posted on by

This afternoon the Senate Ways & Means Committee held public hearings on twenty-seven different bills with plans to move out of committee nearly nineteen bills.

The stars of this afternoon’s hearing were two education related bills. 

Senate Bill 6562 a.k.a. the tuition policy bill. SB 6562 authorizes the University of Washington, Washington State University, and the Western Washington University governing boards to set tuition rates. The average annual compounded rate of change of undergraduate tuition fees may not exceed 9 percent based on the previous 15 years, or 14 percent in any one year.

The Committee on Higher Education Performance is created and authorized to approve performance agreements. The performance agreement must be six years in duration. Annual adequate performance as determined by the committee is required to maintain tuition setting authority. The committee is composed of the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee, Senate Ways and Means Committee, House Higher Education Committee, and House Education Appropriations.

The UW, WSU, and WWU must waive full-time tuition fees for resident undergraduate students based on family and state median family incomes. Waivers of full time tuition fees for resident undergraduate students are provided on a graduated scale in 4.5 percent increments based on state median family income and the institution’s tuition fee rate. The waivers must be reduced by the amount of any state need grant, federal, state, and institutional scholarships, grants, and waivers. Such waivers are exempt from tuition waiver limitations.

Tuition fee setting authority remains the same as current law for Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University, the Evergreen State College, and the community and technical colleges.

The State Actuary presented to the committee the potential impact on the Guaranteed Education Tuition (GET) Program.  The State Actuary, given the assumptions in the bill, concluded there is virtually no risk of the GET Program running out of assets over the next 50 years if the program remains open and all other current policies and provisions remain unchanged. The one cautionary note shared by the State Actuary was that the impact may differ if purchaser behavior changes.

President Emmert (UW), President Floyd (WSU), and Trustee Phil Sharpe (WWU) testified in support of the bill. Each one stated that the bill provided the balance needed between a quality education and an accessible education for Washingtonians. 

Members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee asked several questions, including the current percentage of state funds that make up the budget of those institutions in the bill and how under these policy changes policymakers can be assured that  student-debt load would not rise and economic and ethnic diversity would not decline. In addition members asked whether or not the tuition setting authority in the bill allows the state to back away from future state support.  Additional questions posed included the impact on retention and the middle-income student population.

Charlie Earl, Executive Director, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges and the League of Education Voters also testified in support of the bill.  The Washington Student Association and students from WSU, UW, and WWU testified in opposition to the bill. Students raised concerns regarding the increases in tuition identified in the bill and the fiscal pressure that will be placed on funding for state financial aid.

Senate Bill 6696 comprises several policy changes to K-12 to make Washington more competitive for Race to the Top dollars. The House proposed similar legislation, but disaggregated the policy changes among three bills – HB 3059, 3068, 3035.

Senate Bill 6696 seeks policy and structural changes in the areas of school and teacher evaluation, assessment, and preparation.  Of importance to Evergreen are the policy changes to teacher preparation programs. In particular the bill would require Evergreen’s teacher preparation programs to offer an alternate route program, which may negatively impact the College.  If grants and Race to the Top dollars are not received, Evergreen would be left to shoulder the costs of developing and implementing this program with no additional funds. Evergreen proposed a change to the language that would make offering alternate route programs permissive. The change in language was not included in the final bill approved by the committee and passed to the floor.

Evergreen also kept an eye on several other bills.

  • SSB 6702 makes available educational programs for juveniles confined in adult jails. Each school district, within which there exists an adult jail, must provide a program of education for juveniles confined therein. Districts may contract with educational service districts, community and technical colleges, four-year institutions or other qualified entities to provide all or part of these services.
  • SSB 6761 implements the recommendations put forward by the Quality Education Council during the interim.
  • SSB 6362 requires the Legislature to identify ten government priorities to verify that state agencies and activities are performing at their highest efficiency. The ten priorities include improving: student achievement in K-12; quality and respect for the public workforce; value of state college or university education; health of state citizens; security of the state’s vulnerable children and adults; the economic vitality of businesses and individuals; statewide mobility of people, goods, information, and energy; safety of people and property; quality of the state’s natural resources; and cultural and recreational opportunities throughout the state. The State Auditor is required to select the highest priorities to audit and the lowest priorities to assess. In addition, the State Auditor is required to present its work plan at an open public meeting for evaluation and recommendations prior to commencing audits.
  • SB 6374 requires the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to include economic modeling or other procedures that take into account increased economic activity which may result from economic development contemplated in legislation  in fiscal note instructions.
  • SSB 5543 requires producers of mercury-containing lights (lamps, bulbs, tubes, or other devices containing mercury and providing illumination) sold in or into Washington to participate in product stewardship programs that are fully implemented by 2013.
  • SB 6843  temporarily suspends the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases and permanently modifying provisions of Initiative Measure No. 960 for improved efficiency and consistency with state budgeting.
  • SB 6833 allows the Office of the State Treasurer to enter agreements with state agencies for investment by the Treasurer of funds not currently deposited with the Treasurer.  At this time higher education is exempt from the bill. Evergreen supports the bill in its current form.
  •  SB 6845 requires the collection and use of additional information regarding information technology projects, including  the requirement that OFM obtain specific information about IT projects, including current and future costs by category, estimated operating savings and other benefits, and estimated start and end dates.

Senate Policy Committees Continue to Take Action on Bills

Posted on by

Today Senate Policy Committees were busy moving bills forward before the cut-off deadline on Friday.

Senate Higher Education & Workforce Development

The Senate Higher Education & Workforce Development Committee passed a tuition policy bill for the University of Washington, Washington State University, and Western Washington Univerrsity.

Substitute Senate Bill 6562 allows the board’s of UW, WSU, and WWU to set tuition rates within limits. Tuition (the average annual compounded rate of change of undergraduate tuition fees)at these institutions is not allowed to exceed 9% based on the previous 15 years or 14% in any one year. In addition, the Committee on Higher Education Performance is created and authorized to approve performance agreements for UW, WSU, and WWU. Finally, these institutions must waive full-time tuition/fees for resident undergraduate students based on family and state median family income levels. The waivers are based on a graduated scale based on state median family income and institutional tuition fee rates.

For Evergreen as well as Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University, and the community and technical colleges tuition fee setting authority remains the same as current law.

The substitute bill was further amended in committee. The amendments establish a sunset for tuition setting authority for the three institutions in the bill at the end of the 2017-18 academic year; change the title from Relating to higher education finance to Relating to higher education accountability and access; and modifies the Committee on Higher Education Performance to include members from the minority party.

Substitute Senate Bill 6562 passed unanimously out of committee. The bill is now headed to Senate Ways & Means for their consideration.

Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education

The Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education committee took action on an omnibus teacher preparation and K-12 bill. Substitute Senate Bill 6696 includes the following changes related to teacher preparation.

Section 402: Clarifies that community colleges and non-higher education providers can be considered for new providers of the alternative routes. Moves the option for residency teacher preparation programs to provide a summary of procedures providing flexible completion opportunities to section 403 and makes it part of what alternative route providers must include in their application.

Section 403: Removes “higher education” since such institutions will not be the only providers of alternative routes.

Section 409: Clarifies that the service regions for institutions of higher education is for those institutios of higher education as defined in RCW 28B.10.016 (all the 4-year universities and college & the community and technical colleges).

In addition, Substitute Senate Bill 6696 was amended as follows related to teacher preparation: (1) Amends the four-level evaluation system for teachers to use student growth data if available and relevant to the teacher and subject matter. Requires the school districts participating in the pilot of the teacher and principal evaluations to submit all student data to OSP; (2) Amends section 202 by adding a parent representative to the group that will create models for implementing the new teacher and principal evaluation system, student growth tools, professional development programs, and evaluator training for classroom teachers and principals. The parent representative must have certain specified qualities and will be chosen by the PTA using a lottery system; (3) Moves the phrase addressing professional development so that it applies to both closing the achievement gap and STEM; and (4) Amends the evaluation criteria for classroom teachers in section 202 to include collaborating, not just communicating with parents and school community.

Tuition the Topic of Conversation in the Senate

Posted on by

The Senate Higher Education & Workforce Development Committee held a public hearing this afternoon focused on tuition policy. Four bills held the attention of Committee Members and a packed hearing room for nearly three hours.

SB 6276 – Grants the University of Washington tuition-setting authority.

SB 6562 – Authorizes the governing boards of the four-year, public institutions to set tuition and fees for resident undergraduate students with constraints, requires institutions to develop performance agreements with the state, and increases the amount that institutions must maintain for financial aid.

SB 6509 – Modifies the current budget proposal process between the HECB and the institutions to include recommendations on tuition and fees.

SB 6625 – Changes higher education tuition and financial aid provisions.

Each of the Senate bills approached tuition policy in a different way, especially with regard to levels of flexibility, required financial aid investments, and the establishment of performance agreements between the four-year public institutions and the State of Washington.

Tuition Comparison

Students from across Washington expressed concerns regarding shifting tuition setting authority from the Legislature to the governing boards of the four-year, public institutions. Most students spoke in favor of SB 6509 and shared concerns about the three remaining bills. Students shared specific concerns with regard to SB 6562 including the high tuition cap,  lack of oversight in the bill, and exclusion of graduate tuition and fees.

The six presidents of the public baccalaureate institutions spoke as a panel to the bills and tuition policy overall.  Chair Kilmer captured the comments of the presidents well by restating five principles/themes he noted from their comments.

1.  Optimize the state investment in higher education.

2. Any tuition policy does not release the state from its responsibility to fund higher education.

3. The unique missions and students mixes of each institution must be acknowledged relative to state appropriations, tuition, and financial aid.

4. Tuition policy should provide limits that will allow students greater predictability and stability.

5. Accountability of the institutions is a critical component of any tuition policy dialogue.

In his comments to the Committee, President Purce acknowledged the major role tuition plays in our higher education funding structure and the  unprecedented economic times facing Washington, which will require non-traditional thinking and strategies to manage our public institutions.

Purce affirmed Evergreen’s long-held position on tuition by stating that the College believes that any conversation regarding higher education funding must integrate and acknowledge the interplay between state appropriations, financial aid, and tuition. In addition, he welcomed the active dialogue Evergreen is engaged in with  the other public, four-year institutions in Washington to move forward a policy by which higher education can have the tools necessary to manage in times of even more cuts this year and those projected for the 2011-13 biennium.

Purce echoed the need for the state and higher education to make a commitment to find a way(s) that recognize the different missions among the institutions, different student bodies, a strength of Washington’s higher education sector, and  meet the unusual circumstances we find ourselves in as a sector and as a state.

State Treasurer Jim McIntire provided his personal support for SB 6562. He stated that institutions should be responsible to set their own tuition prices that reflect the unique markets each institution works within. In addition, he recognized the limited authority provided in the bill to raise tuition, presence of accountability measures via performance agreements, and need to maintain the integrity and quality of Washington institutions of higher learning.

Ann Daley, Executive Director for the Higher Education Coordinating Board, discussed tuition policy within the context of the Board’s recent tuition policy study. She encouraged policymakers to aim to recalibrate the relationship between tuition, financial aid, and state approprations.

In addition, representatives from the Governor’s Office, League of Education Voters, business community, faculty, and the community colleges also testified to the need to protect the quality of higher education while keeping the doors open to students.