His bill would have created a commission to assign performance
standards for schools, which subsequently would have been used to apportion
state money to them on the basis of outcomes. In testimony, Appel said while
the state lagged in support per student compared to southern state peers, the
more important issue was performance and getting greater efficiency gains.
Critics, and perhaps explaining why the measure failed, argued it was a lack of
money in the system where its increase might get better performance.
However, the data largely validate the idea that higher education in
Louisiana can be run more efficiently and does not suffer that much from lack
of resources. Using the latest data
available (2010), the state (of all of them plus the District of Columbia)
ranks 18th highest in per
capita state appropriations, yet ranks close to the bottom both in degree
completion (defined as those finished within six years) and in retention. But
in total expenditures per capita,
Louisiana is right in the middle, and ranked 32nd in amount of
spending per full-time equivalent student.
Explaining the difference is that other states’ expenditures are
boosted by (in many cases by double or triple the size of) amount of tuition
and fees charged. For baccalaureate institutions, the state ranked
fourth-lowest, and second lowest in the southern region.
In fact, in the region one could factor in 10 percent increases annually for
the last three years, unrealistically assuming no other southern state
increased its tuition, and in the ranking the state would rise exactly one
place, so dramatically low is Louisiana’s in-state tuition. And this doesn’t
even account for through its Taylor Opportunity for Scholars Program the state paying
tuition for about a fifth of all students.
While some argue that low tuition is necessary because Louisiana is a “poor”
state, in fact when comparing the percentage of tuition and fees charged to median
household income, the state ranks 39th. In other words, the
state relatively undercharges students compared to other states, leading it to
abstain from beefing up spending on higher education.
Regardless, that per capita or
per student spending is relatively so high compared to outcomes shows the
inherent inefficiency of the system. And in large part this can be traced back
to the overbuilt nature of the system. The state ranks 39th in
population per baccalaureate institution, and 35th in enrollment per
baccalaureate institution, figures when including community college students decline
a couple of places further, showing too few students are chasing too many
institutions (the figures fall in rankings even further when including separate
campuses instead of administrative units). Both this and low tuition are
reflected in that Louisiana ranks 9th in the proportion of full-time
students of all; they predominantly attend baccalaureate universities and can
afford to do so on a full-time basis.
That the state ranks as it does on these yet has such low completion
and retention statistics indicates potential delivery problems but perhaps
speaks more to the negligible admission standards that existed until this academic
year. Hiking those will provide some better efficiency in that unprepared
students will be steered to community colleges in greater proportions, but the
low tuition rates and undemanding TOPS standards will continue to induce these
kinds of students disproportionately to enter college and to weigh down
retention and completer statistics.
One other, and often cited, statistic illustrates inefficiency in the
system. Louisiana ranks 15th in the proportion of students attending
baccalaureate institutions. Especially given the relatively low level of
college-readiness as indicated by comparatively low
American College Test scores (40th nationally for 2012),
increasing the portion that attends community college, at least at first, can
provide better readiness to move on and is cheaper.
To summarize, inefficiency comes from two sources. There is a systemic
component, comprised of the overbuilt system that dilutes resources, imprecise
matching of student capability to level of institution, and generous
cost-sharing incentives (low to almost free tuition and fees) that cause
oversupply of marginal students likelier to fail; and a process component that
aims to take capable and motivated students and educate them to degree-earning
status that perhaps can be improved with additional funding as long as that and
other funding are being used in ways that best educates for society’s demands
for the least dollars.
Thereby, to address these, systemic change is needed, which Appel’s
bill didn’t address, and process change is needed also, which his bill tried to
do. But it should be clear that this effort was just one part of the puzzle, to
increase process efficiency, and addressing just the state money angle of that.
1 comment:
How can you even speak to efficiency when you are paid to teach the few you teach with limited face to face education? You are a "big word" FOOL.
Post a Comment