 |
Photo By Jymi Bolden
|
State support of higher education has fallen drastically
in the past two years, according to UC spokesman
Greg Hand.
|
When University of Cincinnati students started class last week, they did so at a higher cost than ever.
Earlier this year the state cut $39.2 million in appropriations for higher education. Along with larger cuts in previous years, this put a dent in the university's budget, leading UC to hike tuition 9.9 percent.
The state cuts are part of a trend that's spanned decades in Ohio. State subsidies provided half of UC's budget in 1984 but only 23 percent this year.
During Gov. Bob Taft's administration, Ohio universities have seen an unusual amount of the state's funding turned back.
"We've seen a huge decrease in state funding since 2001," says UC spokesman Greg Hand.
Ohio finishes 40th
Are Taft and the state legislature bent on the destruction of Ohio's higher education system?
Exploding Medicaid expenditures, court-based requirements for K-12 education funding and an eroded tax base leave higher education as the discretionary piece of Ohio's budgetary puzzle, according to Rick Petrick, vice chancellor for finance for the Ohio Board of Regents. It also leaves Ohio ranked 40th in the nation for public investment per full-time student.
The board of regents, a body overseeing the state's higher education system, has consistently pressured Taft and the legislature for desperately needed funds. Although the state's plan for fiscal year 2004 includes a slight increase in higher education spending, Petrick says it's not enough.
"We've added 39,000 students, the equivalent of one University of Cincinnati," he says. "We needed an additional $195 million this year to pay for those additional enrollments."
Ohio has not adjusted quickly enough to the shift from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy, Petrick says. One result is that Ohio trails 5 percent behind the national average for per-capita income, which means less income tax revenue and less money to support higher education. It's a cyclical effect that keeps Ohio economically disabled.
Meanwhile, public universities across the state are scrambling to ensure financial stability.
As Cincinnati's largest employer, UC has juggled funds well enough to keep layoffs at bay. But it's had to make some other sizable sacrifices, such as the elimination of two entire programs. One of them, the College of Evening and Continuing Education, catered to non-traditional students -- people who have kids and jobs but still want a college education.
Some suggest the state's "tough luck" policy does have its advantages, at least for those in office. Because people age 18-24 are the least likely to vote, handing over budget cuts to apathetic college students reaps little political repercussion for state officials.
"Whenever you have a general population that doesn't participate that much in the political process, the people in office always feel that they can put aside or sacrifice what that group needs," says Robert Richardson, a second year law student at UC who, as an undergraduate, served as student body president. "If we see a higher turnout in that 18-24 age gap, we would certainly see a change in the way that college is funded."
The U.S. Census Bureau showed only 18.5 percent of those ages 18-24 voted during the 1998 congressional election, the lowest percentage for any age bracket. People ages 45 and older turned out 50-65 percent.
Apathy rules
If the numbers from the polls left state officials with any doubts about student apathy, several attempts by college students over the past three years to rally at the Statehouse crushed that uncertainty.
After Taft cut $121 million from Ohio's higher education budget in 2001, UC's student government led a rally that attracted fewer than 40 students, even though UC President Joseph Steger volunteered to rent buses for the trip.
State Sen. Mark Mallory (D-Cincinnati) was one of the few legislators who met with the students.
"There are some legislators who don't believe in this concept of higher education," Mallory says. "Unfortunately, those in control of the budget don't want to make higher education a priority."
The Taft administration denies that the low percentage of students who vote has anything to do with its record of cutting support for higher education.
"That's not the reason the cuts were made in higher education," says Taft spokesman Orest Holubec. "I don't quite follow that logic."
When Ohio experiences financial woes, the state has few places to dump the burden, he says. Higher education, which makes up about 9 percent of the state's budget, and state cabinet agencies, which make up 19 percent, are the only places where the state can make cuts, Holubec says.
"Primary and secondary education is about 30 percent (of the state budget), Medicaid is about 35, debt service and tax relief together is about 10," he says. "So there isn't a lot of discretion in where cuts can be made when money isn't available."
Because many parents foot the bill for their children, the small percentage of college students who vote is probably not the sole reason for Ohio's spending cuts, according to Jim Plummer, UC's director of budget planning.
Like Mallory, Plummer thinks state officials might have some misperceptions about higher education.
"I think maybe the legislators feel like there may be a lot of fat in higher education," he says. "But that's not true."
The board of regents has started a campaign designed to crush misperceptions and spread awareness about higher education's role in pulling Ohio out of its economic slump. Vice Chancellor Petrick says the regents have made about 70 presentations across the state.
The best way to make that campaign work? Get college students and their parents to vote. ©
Printer-friendly version
