Legislative Debate of Higher Ed Warrants Historical Analysis
Tuition Hikes and Flat Taxpayer Support Present "Chicken and the Egg" to Legislators, Efficiency Opportunities
|
April 15, 2013 - Wichita - Competing plans in the legislature on Kansas' six taxpayer-supported universities have brought higher education spending to the forefront in Topeka. A new analysis from Kansas Policy Institute looks at the previous ten fiscal years to provide context to Gov. Brownback's plan to hold funding steady, the Board of Regents' (KBOR) request for a $47.1 million increase, and plans in the House and Senate to cut spending, four and two percent respectively. Tuition, fees, spending, and enrollment are offered in total and broken down by institution. Also included are areas in which the legislature and the universities can find common ground to save taxpayers and students money while, ultimately, deliver better service.
"State aid is essentially flat from where it was ten years ago, but tuition has jumped 136.9% from where it was in 2002," said KPI president Dave Trabert. "Did legislators hold spending flat because of tuition hikes? Or, did universities increase tuition because of little change in state support? This 'chicken and the egg' problem is probably one of perspective but needs to be seriously considered by Kansans."
The analysis finds that in 2003 the legislature reacted to recession with a 7.4 percent reduction in total expenditures, considerably more than the 5.1 percent reduction in aid to the six state-funded universities. The trend held of "protecting" higher education after 2008; a two-year state expenditure reduction of 13.7 percent while aid to the universities declined 8.9 percent.
General Use administrative costs (defined as "Institutional Support" by KBOR) of the six state-funded universities, which are funded by taxpayer support and tuition, increased 78 percent over the last ten years, or a little more than three times the inflation rate. There is a wide variance in per-student spending among the six universities on these categories. For instance, Fort Hays State reduced their per-student costs when those at the other five schools grew by 38 percent.
Per-student spending at the University of Kansas and Kansas State University grew much more than the others (52 percent and 46 percent, respectively), which is likely related to the fact that they also had the greatest tuition increases (194 percent and 170 percent, respectively).
Trabert continued, "No matter the enterprise, we should always be looking for ways to operate more efficiently and deliver better service. The legislature provided K-12 school districts more flexibility in spending carryover cash and should do the same with KBOR universities, Legislative Post Audit has a study with a laundry list of efficiency opportunities, and KBOR should come to Topeka with a list of mandates they raise their costs with little impact on institutional mission."
"Privatization also offers a tremendous avenue for universities to save money and focus on what they do best - preparing students to compete in the 21st century economy. The Ohio State University put $483 million into their endowment recently by leasing parking assets on campus. The same thing can happen in Hays, Pittsburg, or Manhattan. We want our universities focused on students, research, and extension not asphalt maintenance. Privatization can help make that a reality and save both students and taxpayers money," concluded Trabert.
|
|
# # #
Kansas Policy Institute is an independent think-tank that advocates for free market solutions and the protection of personal freedom for all Kansans. Our work centers on state and local economic policy with primary emphasis on education, fiscal policy and health care. We empower citizens, legislators and other government officials with objective research and creative ideas to promote a low-tax, pro-growth environment that preserves the ability of governments to provide high quality services. To speak with Kansas Policy Institute, please contact James Franko at (316) 634-0218.
|
