The reply: Rep. Sells response (part 1)

Today the Herald published a letter to the editor from Representative Mike Sells of Everett, which is a response to my letter to the editor published March 15th. I'm glad to see a response, any response, just so that it appears there is some debate going on (maybe that will interest the average citizen).

I can't tell you how excited I was that he trotted out the old classic half-truth "We already have our four-year institutions in the state turning away eligible students". I never get tired of that chestnut. Okay, let's review how funding works (as I the average citizen understands it):

1. The legislature funds a certain number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students at each institution
2. Once the institution reaches that enrollment level, they are free to do one of the following:

• continue enrolling students if they can find other sources of funding and it doesn't hurt the quality of instruction.
• stop enrolling students
  

Each year the Office of Financial Management does a budget drivers report that looks at Budget vs. Actual/Projected Actual FTEs at each school. The 2007/2008 report shows that all the schools have taken in everyone they are budgeted for, with the exception of UW Bothell and UW Tacoma (isn't that interesting). As best as I can figure - and I am not an expert in education funding - the report indicates that the qualified students have been turned away because the legislature failed to fund enough positions and the schools decided to stop over-enrolling. I see nothing that says physical space was the issue (please let me know if you find it).

We really need to be watching the funding of FTEs, not the construction of colleges. Reports from the Higher Education Coordinating (HEC) Board on higher education trends and the Office of Financial Management on enrollment suggest that increased FTE funding is essential to just keep pace with current growth. If the legislature can pay for a new campus why can't it afford to fund the current shortfall in FTEs? What will guarantee that they will fully fund the FTEs in addition to the new campus?

The report of qualified students being turned away comes from another report from the Office of Financial Management called A Perspective on Unmet Demand. Once you get past all the definitions and sampling logic you come across this little quote:

The "waiting line" as indicated by unserved applicants should not be interpreted as a measure of total unmet need for higher education. Persons who may lack the resources to attend a four year institution, for example, and those who do not submit a complete application, are not counted among the unserved.

Like an unemployment report that shows false signs of improvement because some job seekers just give up and stop looking, this report would indicate that our problem is much bigger than even they estimate. Their waiting line is people who could attend if accepted, but doesn't include those who don't apply because they know they can't afford to go.

Want to be really depressed? Try reading the HEC Board's 2008 Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education. Start on page 5, the section called "How did we fall behind".

Oh, and if you see Mike, tell him Corey delved a little deeper.

Tags: Mike Sells, UW North, HEC Board