A. Increase capacity and sustainability of public higher education
1) Address the revenue gap for public colleges and universities
Since the mid-nineties, the annual higher education budget requests to the Governor have been developed utilizing a funding “formula” administered by the Board of Higher Education. Not surprisingly, the public campuses in Massachusetts are currently funded at a level far below what the formula calls for. According to the Department of Higher Education, the public higher education revenue gap (total operating requirement less total revenue) is approximately $380 million annually. The shortfall has actually widened over the last decade, making funding for student support, faculty growth, physical plant maintenance, and student retention a critical issue at community and state colleges.
Over the last several years the Legislature been working to reduce this shortfall and should now commit to closing the funding gap over a period of five to seven years. This will allow public higher education institutions to strengthen their core academic programs and broaden strategic investments in essential student programs and services. Once the gap is closed, the cost of maintaining a system of high quality will fall back into a normal and sustainable range, and public education institutions will be capable of making much greater contributions to the life of the Commonwealth. While appropriations for higher education will have to be somewhat higher than they have been in the recent past, and sustained at that level over a somewhat longer period, this “ramping up” strategy should be feasible within current economic parameters.
1.a The Legislature should increase support for public higher education to the level necessary for success by fully funding the formula over a 5-7 year period
2) Coordinate and support capital investments at public colleges and universities
To increase access to public higher education, colleges and universities must have sufficient and modern classroom and modern laboratory space, as well as appropriate faculty, necessary to accommodate a larger student population. The Administration and Legislature should make ongoing investments in both current facility needs as well as establishing and investing in new emerging priorities.
In 2001, the Board of Higher Education, along with the Division of Capital Asset Management and the colleges, embarked on a multi-phase capital planning initiative to articulate the need for capital investment and provide a more efficient and transparent method of allocating capital resources.
As it is implemented, this capital program should:
- upgrade existing laboratory and science facilities to ensure that students are prepared for the demands of the current workplace; and
- include funding construction of new centers that are focused on emerging technologies in alignment with the state’s economic development plan
- demonstrate consistency with the MetroFuture’s land use plan by funding facilities in accessible locations and population centers
2.a The Legislature should support bond bills and capital expenditures necessary to implement the Department of Higher Education’s capital plan
3) Support non-credit continuing education, workforce development, graduate courses, and ESOL programs
Current state law distinguishes funding for "day"college programs and continuing education programs, and requires that programs offered through divisions of continuing education or graduate studies operate at no expense to the Commonwealth. The distinction between continuing education and so-called “day” programs might be eliminated for a variety of reasons: it can create barriers to part-time and working students who can’t take advantage of a regular academic schedule; it might complicate faculty workload policies; and it can create pricing and course availability anomalies. This negatively affects both pricing and availability of non-credit, workforce development, ESOL, and graduate programs, particularly at the community colleges. Since these programs must operate with no maintenance funding, institutions must rely on temporary sources of support and course fees. In addition, non-credit programs do not qualify for financial aid, putting them financially out of reach to the very populations in most need. This particularly hurts the community colleges.
This historical funding dichotomy has outlived its original purpose and practicality. Providing state funding for continuing education programs and graduate studies that contribute specifically to workforce development goals will directly benefit those students who are currently unprepared or unable to undertake a full-time academic program, including low-skilled incumbent workers and adult learners seeking upward career mobility.
3.a The Department of Higher Education and public higher education institutions should develop a proposal for applying state funds to workforce-related continuing education
4) Reform and modernize administrative procedures in the community college system
Modern, flexible administrative procedures are necessary if state and community colleges can be expected to meet the needs of the region. For example, community colleges now face a shortage of nursing instructors, in part because the statewide faculty contract does not allow for flexible compensation. Community colleges need not be hindered with inflexible human resource processes that deny senior management the ability to think outside the box when attracting talented personnel. A thorough management audit of community college policies and procedures by a highly qualified and respected outside source will provide policy-makers with the information required to streamline outdated or unnecessary policies and procedures.
The Governor’s Readiness Project has recommended that the Commonwealth move to increase the authority of local boards for the state colleges and community colleges to include evaluation of and salary decisions for presidents and oversight of budgets. Institutions should have the flexibility to manage their own resource allocations within broad limits while being held accountable for effective management.
5) Reform DCAM procedures to make it easier for institutions to occupy & improve rental spaces
Facility leases, property restoration, and joint institution and business occupancy agreements can be important components toward enhancing institutional presence in currently underserved locations. Unfortunately, current state facility lease regulations inhibit a public higher education institution’s ability to respond quickly to area businesses seeking on-site, convenient access to structured programs and training. Burdensome state rental procedures overseen by Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) should be revised to delegate authority to public higher education institutions to occupy and/or restore temporary space for academic use, particularly in urban centers and other locations consistent with MetroFuture’s land use objectives.
Post new comment