Tuition Policy Review Committee
Room 1A
AGENDA
1) Acceptance of December 17 Minutes
2) Chairman’s Report
3) Annual Degrees Conferred Report - Commissioner Lewis
DRAFT
Recommendations to Board of Governors, Governor and General Assembly
1) The public policy goals served by state support for higher education should be clearly stated and associated with measurable outcomes in some form of annual report. In a sense, the “terms of the deal” between the systems/institutions and the state should be spelled out annually so all involved can understand the public benefit created by the state’s investment and the financial resources available to achieve that benefit.
2) The forces driving higher education costs to increase faster than inflation for sustained periods of time should be identified. This would enable the state and the public to understand if these cost drivers are actually investments that provide a future benefit and if the state can assist the systems/institutions in decreasing the impact of those cost drivers not providing a measurable future benefit.
Work plan of the Tuition Policy Review Committee based on the above recommendations:
· The public policy goals served by state support for higher education should be clearly stated and associated with measurable outcomes.
1) This Committee should focus first on the public policy goals of equal access to higher education.
2) Other goals in issue areas such as economic competitiveness, labor shortages, etc. could be incorporated later.
3) Each system (and institution, if there is differentiation) should define the “target market” it seeks to serve. This definition should be in sufficient detail to permit an analysis of the financial capacity of the range of CT residents who would fall within it.
4) Tuition and financial aid should be related to the appropriate income measures associated with various cohorts of the target market.
5) A financial model should be constructed that would predict the impact of changes in state support on tuition and financial aid, and ultimately on access.
· The forces driving higher education costs to increase faster than inflation for sustained periods of time should be identified.
1) Cost increases associated with new or expanded programs should be distinguished from general cost increases.
2) Factors that drive costs in excess of general inflation should be identified.
3) The role of systems, institutions, the state and the national culture in higher education in affecting these cost drivers should be spelled out.
4) General recommendations that can be pursued within CT should be developed.