1 / 28

Understanding State Higher Education Politics: The Case of Tuition Policy

Understanding State Higher Education Politics: The Case of Tuition Policy. Tara R. Warne University of Missouri Institutional Research & Planning warnetr@umsystem.edu. Purpose. Describe the context surrounding state level tuition policy making

vasilis
Download Presentation

Understanding State Higher Education Politics: The Case of Tuition Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Understanding State Higher Education Politics: The Case of Tuition Policy Tara R. Warne University of Missouri Institutional Research & Planning warnetr@umsystem.edu

  2. Purpose • Describe the context surrounding state level tuition policy making • Describe trends in tuition policy across the states since 2000 • Explore the causes of state level tuition policy change

  3. Overview • General higher education context • Why study tuition policy • Components of tuition policy • Trends in tuition and tuition policy • Theoretical Framework and Methods • A closer look—Florida and Texas • Questions & Comments

  4. Higher Education Context • At a dangerous juncture in state/public relationships • Accountability, academic freedom • The academic ratchet • Decline in state appropriations • Direct approp: 54% of revenue to 31.9% of revenue between 1997-2001 • Tuition and fees: 12.9 % of revenue to 18.1%

  5. Prior Research • Emphasizes state support in terms of tax effort • Or, affordability and accessibility • Little work on policy making processes

  6. Table 1: Relative Shares of Educational Expenditures Between Families, Taxpayers, and Philanthropy FY 1970 to FY 1996

  7. Why tuition policy? • Untapped area of research • As tuition becomes a primary funding source we need to more about the rules of the “tuition game” • Policy fragmentation • Difference in language of policy analysts and political science

  8. Components of Tuition Policy • Structural aspects • Mission-based • Tuition philosophy • Distributed authority • Indexing to external indicators • Cost differentials

  9. Components Cont.’ • Tuition budgetary policy—policy responses to increasing tuition • Tuition policy—policies establishing actual rates or conditions under which they will be set

  10. Types of Tuition Policies • Exemptions • Residency • Miscellaneous • Authority

  11. Table 2: State Tuition Policy Activity 2000 to 2006

  12. Table 3: States Changing Policy

  13. Table 4: Philosophy and Tuition Policy

  14. Tables 5 & 6: Tuition Philosophy, Tuition Rates, Tuition Change

  15. Tables 7 & 8: State Tax Effort and Tuition Philosophy

  16. Institutional Analysis & Development Framework • Definition: rules, norms of behavior, strategies, and their enforcement mechanisms pattern human interaction (North, 1990; Ostrom, 1999; Dill, 2003) • Three tiers of decision making: constitutional, collective choice, operational • Action arenas include action situations and actors

  17. IAD (cont.) • Relevant variables: set of participants, their socio-political position, outcomes of actions, level of participant control, available information, costs/benefits assigned to potential outcomes • Actors are intendedly rational, but are fallible learners

  18. IAD and Tuition Policy • College prices can be considered a collective action problem characterized by the following information asymmetries • Students/families lack information about quality and net price • Policy makers lack information about quality and cost • Institutions lack information about quality, cost, and policy maker preferences

  19. Methods • This study examines the collective choice tier of decision making—how are tuition policies addressing tuition setting authority made? • Case Study Approach (Yin, 2003) • Pilot case selection: states were selected on the basis of having very active tuition politics • States: Florida and Texas • Data includes materials from state legislature, Governors’ offices, news reports, state agencies, institutions, and interest groups

  20. Population (2004): 17,019,068 10 public 4-year institutions enrolling 199,535 students Average 2004 tuition for 4-year publics $2553 Tuition increased 33.6% from 2000 to 2004 Political Climate: Conservative Activist legislature Proportion of state expenditures going to H.E. declined from 9.5% to 8.4% between 2000 and 2004 Florida Demographics

  21. Florida Tuition Policy • 2005: Tension among universities, Board of Governors, and legislature over tuition authority • 2002: constitutional amendment gave newly formed BoG sole tuition authority, which they ceded to the legislature in 2003 • HB 1001gave the legislature control over tuition (signed) • SB 2264 allows Boards of Trustees greater latitude in setting tuition and fees (vetoed) • HB 7087 Gives the legislature tuition authority for undergraduates

  22. Florida Tuition Policy Cont.’ • Great deal of legislative and voter activity around the issue of university governance since 2000 • Perception of pork barrel politics driving H.E. policy • Council of 100 (business leaders) support higher tuition • Weak Board of Governors-began to assert itself in 2004 • Educators and attorneys filed suit against Governor and legislator to block increased leglislative control

  23. Population (2004): 22,118,509 42 public 4-year institutions enrolling 353,826 students Average 2004 tuition for 4-year publics $3596 Tuition increased 58% from 2000 to 2004 Political Climate: Conservative Moderate legislature Proportion of state expenditures going to H.E. increased from 13.6% to 15% between 2000 and 2004 Texas Demographics

  24. Texas Tuition Policy • 2003: HB 3015 Decentralized tuition authority to university boards ( in response to state budget crisis) • 2004: tuition increased prompt lawmakers to order an audit at UT and TAMU • 2005: dispute between UT and state auditor over calculation of financial need (UT prioritizes lower income students) • 2005/2006: state-wide discussions about flat-rate tuition

  25. Texas Tuition Policy Cont.’ • Deregulation supported by UT and TAMU and business leaders • Less support from smaller institutions • UT Watch organized strong resistance to tuition increases • Disputes budget crisis rationale • Regent positions are seen as patronage appointments • Business leaders advocate corporate approach to running university finances

  26. Discussion • Declining state budgets are not the only reason for tuition increases, institutional politics is also important. • IAD is a promising framework—allows for systematic comparison of tuition policy making across states

  27. Future Research • Part of larger project comparing the explanatory power of three theories of the policy process • 50 state regression study of tuition and state expenditures • Case study comparison of tuition policy in 4-5 states

  28. Questions & Comments • Contact Information Tara R. Warne Associate Research Analyst UM Institutional Research & Planning warnetr@umsystem.edu THANK YOU!

More Related