TUITION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECORD OF MEETING
Members Present: Sen. Cappiello, Rep. Flaherty, K. Guay, Sen. Hartley, W. Johnson, L. McHugh, K. Krapek, M. Meotti, A. Vertefeuille, L. Zollo
1. Call to Order
Chairman Meotti called the meeting
to order at
2. Acceptance of
On a motion made by L. Zollo, seconded by L. McHugh, the
Committee unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the
3. Annual
Degrees Conferred Report
Commissioner Lewis presented the annual degrees conferred report. The report speaks to what higher education supplies in credentialed workforce entrants against the demands of business and industry and non profit organizations across the state. She reported that degrees are rising, but not as fast as hoped in critical industry areas such as nursing, biology and engineering. There is concern about slower degree production at the public colleges. Such lengthening time could be a question of affordability, since students at these colleges tend to be more price-sensitive and may be taking longer to graduate to cope with rising tuitions. This report does evidence different rates of growth and decline in degree production from institution to institution. The annual tally shows a significant drop-off in the share of degrees awarded by public colleges over the past 10 years. This past spring, their share stood at 48 percent compared to 54 percent in 1992. The reverse is happening at the independent colleges whose degree share stands at 52 percent, up 5.5 percentage points from 1992. This outcome is particularly at odds with more recent trends in which public enrollments are growing faster than student counts in the independent sector. Finally, the Commissioner noted particular concern for the decline in associate degree production. She anticipates that the Board of Governors will ask for a close review of these issues with institutional leadership.
4. Discussion
of Draft Recommendations and Work Plan
Chairman Meotti presented the following draft recommendations to be made to the Board of Governors, Governor and General Assembly, these based on the summary of the key issues and questions that were raised during the September 2002 meeting:
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.
Chairman Meotti reviewed the work plan of the Tuition Policy Review Committee based on the above recommendations with the goal of completion in the next four to five months. He reported that the work of the Committee should frame an understanding about the policy behind state support for public higher education, particularly in respect to access. L. McHugh noted that quality and access should be tied together.
K. Krapek suggested that the Higher Education Pricing Index (HEPI) be used to measure recommendation #2, and that the issue of collective bargaining and its impact be included in discussions.
There was discussion regarding the
state’s labor shortages in critical areas and whether the state is producing
competitive citizens. Members agreed to
look at the nursing shortage as an example of how to set policy around the responsibility
of public higher education to meet a job shortage and to recognize the associated
investment. Chairman Meotti welcomed
nominations for one other specific discipline to use as another policy example. It was noted that such policy also may be an opportunity
to document connections with the K-12 education and workforce communities as essential
to the end goal of defining
It was further suggested that as discussions take place, individuals with background expertise be invited to identify what may be unnecessary factors driving costs in the higher education system. These dollars could be used to offset costs associated with building up critical programs. Some examples of cost drivers may be maintaining underutilized programs and program duplication among the four public constituent units.
Commissioner Lewis noted that the Department of Higher Education could supply data on program array across the public/private institutions, the results of the Board of Governors’ low-degree review and information on nursing to use in shaping policy.
To facilitate discussion of these recommendations, Chairman Meotti requested that each system define its “target market” or who they seek to serve (full-time and part-time), and how that audience is measured demographically and geographically (in-state and out-state). He asked also that the units then be able to document what levels of financial support it would take to reach that market, weighing the priority of their defined public mission.
Chancellor Cibes reported that
students who attend
L. Zollo reported that the market target for the Community College System is the population that chooses to enroll. They cannot designate certain required areas of study because their whole concept is to serve the community. If enrollment declines in certain programs, those programs are eliminated. Again, Chairman Meotti noted such documentation will be very helpful.
Senator Cappiello noted that the overall equity of state funding to the University of Connecticut, Connecticut State University and Community-Technical College System may need to be reviewed to see if they are funded fairly.
Chancellor Cibes stated that if the state support per student is level-funded into the foreseeable future, it may drive up the price or, conversely, collapse enrollment, even though enrollment is expected to increase within the next five years.
K. Krapek noted findings from the millennium project done in 1997 where companies in Greater Hartford were surveyed on jobs they could not fill, suggesting that this data is important support for investment in higher education.
5. Future
Meeting Schedule and Other Issues
Chairman Meotti reported that the next meeting will be scheduled near the end of February followed by a series of meetings through May 2003. Prior to the next meeting, the constituent units will be asked to respond to the question of target market and the financial support necessary to reach it.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
/lml