Circular arguments

Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Jun 14, 2007

Surprise! "Some of Colorado's top higher education officials and lawmakers fear the public was misled about the amount of money colleges and universities would receive from a 2005 ballot measure," according to a story in Saturday's Gazette.

Mysteriously, through no fault of these same officials and lawmakers, people who voted for Ref. C, which left $5 billion in state coffers that would otherwise have been paid-out in TABOR refunds, did so mistakenly. They were duped into believing Ref. C would help address a funding "crisis" then facing higher education - - which just isn't so.

Exactly who did the misleading no one can say. It just happened, through osmosis, and it's time to correct the misunderstanding and gin up anxiety about the next crisis facing higher education when Ref. C sunsets. An education summit held in Colorado Springs Friday obviously served as an opening salvo in that effort.

The state is "living on borrowed time," warned Department of Higher Education executive Director David Skaggs. And University of Colorado President Hank Brown and other summit attendees worry that they might have trouble building public support for another infusion of cash for state colleges and universities if people believe Ref. C was enough. For advocates of education spending, there's never enough.

And worry they should. The Ref. C debate is fresh enough in our memories that we're experiencing deja-vu -- and hearing the same arguments made by the same cast of characters that sold voters on Ref. C. Colorado spends less than other states do, we're told. Pumping more money into the system is an "investment" in the future and critical to maintaining our competitiveness. Without more funds, schools will close and aspiring collegians will be turned away. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

As the story explained, the 30 percent of Ref. C funds going to higher ed hasn't translated into a significant boost in actual funding, but just keeps the system's head above water. "For 2005- 06, that amount was roughly $335 million apiece, yet higher education only saw $76 million in new money that year," reported The Gazette. "The rest of the $335 million, state budget officials said Friday, was used to fund what 'might have been' cut if Referendum C had failed."

And according to Brown, Skaggs and others, if taxpayers don't throw the drowning man another life preserver all will be lost. How much more will be needed, beyond what Ref. C provides? A study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems found that Colorado schools receive 63 percent of the support schools in other states do. "The report said in order to fund all state institutions at the national average, it would require $848 million in today's dollars -- $524 million for research facilities, $222 million for four-year colleges and $102 million for community colleges," reports The Associated Press. That's not chump change.

But shouldn't we ask some hard questions of higher education before we get stampeded in this direction? What seriously is being done by the "system," for instance, to reduce overhead, streamline programs, eliminate faculty "deadwood" and control the upwardly- spiraling cost of college -- costs that are burdening graduates with unprecedented debt loads? The state granted some schools "enterprise" status not long ago, freeing administrators from so much state control, but can't more be done to turn these institutions into "enterprises" in the truest sense of the word?

The last "crisis" forced us to think deeply about what kind of higher education system we want -- and can afford. But the discussion ended with Ref. C's passage, judging from the familiar and circular arguments we're now hearing.

The system needs revolutionary change rather than "reform." A radical streamlining, economizing and re-shaping is required to reduce costs, lower tuition, re-focus programs, toughen standards and -- here's the critical part -- wean the system from its reliance on tax dollars.

But this debate won't happen, and these changes won't take place, if Coloradans simply cave-in to the latest calls for more money.

Not-so-great expectations

Gov. Bill Ritter finally named names Tuesday -- appointing 32 people to his P-20 Education Coordinating Council, an advisory group that will brainstorm ways to reduce dropout rates and improve public education in Colorado, from grade school to graduate school.

Creation of the group made good on a campaign pledge, but doesn't in our view make up for Ritter's complicity in a 2007 legislative session in which progress was threatened, not championed.

A few names may resonate with readers. Former Pikes Peak Community College President, and current Colorado State University at Pueblo President Joe Garcia will co-chair. We were glad to see Classical Academy president Mark Hyatt appointed, along with Jim Henderson, a mathematics professor at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

We'll frankly be surprised, though, if any paradigm-breaking ideas come from it. Contrary to Ritter's claim that a "wide diversity of perspectives" is represented, almost all the appointees are captives, in one way or another, of a system that seems impervious to anything more than nominal change. Whether you'll get "out of the box" thinking from individuals who made their careers "inside the box" is doubtful.