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

Added UW North Links

In a previous post I mentioned that I am using Google Alerts to find other sources of information about the branch campus (other than just the Snohomish County based Herald). When I find these articles I save the link to my del.icio.us account. I thought I would share these with you as well. In the left-hand column you will find my link roll showing the 10 most current links. You can see the whole list at any time by clicking of the title "MY DEL.ICIO.US - UW NORTH".

If you aren't familiar with del.icio.us, it is a social bookmarking site that lets you save your favorite links for easy access from anywhere. More important, it allows you to share your links with other and to search for other people linked to similar topics. It's a way to find out what other folks with similar interests are reading. If you like to know a little more about social bookmarking you might want to check out this short video clip from the Common Craft Show.

Is that sensible (edited for space)?

Well it appears that my proposed letter to the editor came in around 80 words too many (it was very nice of them to let me know and give me a chance to edit it). Instead of modifying the original post, I'm showing here as its own posting. Enjoy.

The UW North branch campus never made any sense and the last ditch attempt by representatives Dunshee and Sells to make the campus law, without funding, location or time table is laughable. How is this sensible (Sunday, March 9^th)?

We have 6 primary university campuses (plus many branch locations) serving the needs of traditional students yet we see dropout rates approaching 50% at some schools. Studies, including A Test of Leadership by the Secretary of Education, show that finances and preparation are 2 of our biggest barriers to college success, not geographic proximity. Further, we see that online and blended education models are booming, making place unimportant. Unless, of course, your goal is construction spending.

We can deliver post-secondary education in the tri-county area at a fraction of the cost of a new campus. I would ask local legislators to give up UW North and commit themselves to breaking down barriers to education in 2008. Go to Bellingham, Ellensburg and Cheney and talk to their Presidents. They offer several bachelor and master degree programs locally now, but find out how the legislature can help to expand them further. Find out how we can speed up articulation agreements and fund development of effective online coursework. Go to Everett CC's University Center for North Puget Sound and see what they need to expand. We have plenty of campuses, what we need now is to make the pieces of the system to work together.

Building a 1960's university won't benefit generations of Snohomish County citizens, but it will saddle them with a mountain of debt. We want increased education opportunity now, not a new campus 20 years from now.

I'm not familiar with that use of the term sensible

In their Sunday, March 9th editorial, the Herald's editors suggested that a new bill that would make it law that Snohomish county will get the next university campus is sensible (also noted in the UW's Capital Update). Here is my letter to the editor response:

The creation of the UW North branch campus never made any sense and the last ditch attempt by representatives Dunshee and Sells to make the campus law, without funding, location or time table is laughable. Only the Herald, who long ago signed on as the ad firm for the project, would characterize this as sensible (Sunday, March 9th).

We already have 6 campuses serving the needs of the traditional student population. Yet we are seeing dropout rates approaching 50% in our some of the universities. Studies, including A Test of Leadership by the Secretary of Education, show that costs and preparation are 2 of our biggest barriers to college success, not geographic proximity. UW North does nothing to address either. Further, we have learned that online and hybrid education models are booming, making place unimportant. Unless, of course, your goal is to bring home a bunch of construction spending to your district. You know, there is a reason why gluttony is a deadly sin.

Putting aside the polytechnic university for a moment (it has it own set of problems), we can deliver non-traditional, post-secondary educational experiences in the tri-county area at a fraction of the cost of a new campus. I would ask local legislators to give up UW North and commit themselves to breaking down barriers to education in 2008. Go to Bellingham, Ellensburg, Pullman and Cheney (put the purple and gold away, you're adults now) and talk to their Presidents. Ask them what the legislature can do to facilitate improvements in their offerings in our area. Ask about the Bachelor, Applied Bachelor and Masters programs already in place and what they hope to add. Find out how we can speed up articulation agreements and fund development of effective online coursework. Then come back to Everett CC and ask about the University Center for North Puget Sound and what they need to expand. We have all the buildings we need, what we need now are programs and funding.

Building a 1960's university won't benefit generations of Snohomish County citizens, but it will saddle them with a mountain of debt. It is time that we send a clear message to our legislators - we want increased education opportunity now, not a new campus 20 years from now. Join me at http://NoSnoU.blogspot.com and lets move this conversation forward.


I'll let you know if it gets published.

UW Tacoma's Technolgoy Institute Unfunded

Dan Voelpel of The News Tribune wonders why the State would launch a new tech-focused university in Snohomish county when the UWT's Institute of Technology has never been properly funded in an article titled "Backward Legislature could hurt UWT".

Does anyone remember that UWT already has an Institute of Technology with a polytechnic focus and a statewide mission?

I’ll forgive you if you forgot. Because the Legislature has failed to live up to the original scope of UWT’s institute when it created the computer science, technology and engineering program in 2001.

Ouch! The article goes on to say that the original expectation was to have 1,900+ undergrad students and almost 250 graduate students in the 2009-2010 school year. However, they only have 252 students this year, and only because they over enrolled. Over enrollment is when a school allows in more students than the state has funded, using some other source of funds, like grants, to make up the difference.

Why on earth should we spend nearly a billion dollars on a new institute for science, technology, engineering and math when we won't fund the one we have? If you're a civic or legislative leader from Snohomish county you should know that wasn't a rhetorical question.

Hark the Herald: Other people are covering the campus procedings

One of the most disappointing aspects of the SnoU circus has been the Everett Herald signing up as pep squad leader for the project. I understand that the editorial board is free to jump on whatever ill-conceived bandwagon that rolls by, but the editors, columnists and beat reporters have no excuse for their actions.

Anyway, I've enrolled the help of the beta product Google Alerts to help me seek out other sources of news. At Google Alerts you can enter a search criteria, some other information about delivery preferences and your email address. Click create alert and you will get a list of links in your email. See a sample of Google Alerts at left.

Here are a few articles not from the Herald:

1. The UW daily covers yesterday's action by the House Higher Ed committee. They approved the Everett site only if the funding does not effect funding for existing schools.
2. The UW daily covers the debate over the cost of funding the new campus. They cover the opinion of Rep. Dan Kristiansen, who is one of the few legislators not totally in favor of the idea.
3. The Left Shue blog covers the infighting among democrats who want the university in Lake Stevens or Snohomish. Councilman Dave Somers is on the receiving end of the spears.
   
4. The Seattle Times covers the removal of the funds to start class this year and gives it to existing community colleges. Originally backers wanted seed money to start classes right away. A legislative committee voted to give that money to existing community colleges until it is determined if the branch campus will really be approved.
   
5. Crosscut.com covers branch campus bingo. Lisa Albers looks at the other UW branch campuses their structure, organization and effects on surrounding schools. She also describes similar efforts in California to create a research school. My take away on this article is we need to decide what we really want out of a new campus. If we want a world-class research facility, then lets stop pretending it is going to help local kids who can leave home.
   
6. Crosscut.com is also discusses the issues/impacts in the conflict over funding. The author is one of the original UW geography professors to research the placement of the original branch campuses. Its a brief article, but it gives some historical perspective and raises a warning about not properly funding the campuses.

So there you are, some news and opinion pieces that aren't the same old, same old from the Herald.

Depending on the kindness of strangers

Knowing that expressing my views on a UW branch campus to my representatives won't do any good, I took some time today to email my thoughts to the members of key committees in the process. That includes all members of the Senate Ways and Means, Senate Higher Education and House Higher Education committees.

Emailing a legislator is really slow process - necessary to eliminate spam and mass mailings - so if anyone else wanted to do it you might want to use regular old mail. I think it is a good investment of time, however, because they are the only ones who might actually halt this process. I don't think they are less greedy than Snohomish county political leaders, they just have less to gain.

Below is a sample sent to the Senate Ways and Means members who are meeting this week on the topic according to Jerry Cornfield's column in the Herald today.

I am not a resident of your district, but I am writing you today because my Snohomish county congressional delegation does not represent my views regarding the creation of a new university in Snohomish county. I see the effort to build a new or branch university campus here or anywhere else in the state as siphoning precious tax dollars from education to construction and oppose its funding, regardless of location. I fully support investment in the delivery of education, but not in sewer systems, freeway off-ramps and ivy-covered buildings.

I feel strongly about the importance of education and, unlike most people, I demonstrate that commitment by volunteering to serve on advisory boards for technical and/or business programs at Edmonds Community College, Everett School District and Mukilteo School district (I have a blog for sharing this at http://advisorybored.blogspot.com). As a result, I see issues such as tuition costs and lower high school graduation rates as far more serious threats to education in Snohomish county than having to drive to Seattle. Also, as an IT hiring manager I am painfully aware that the lack of interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) is not caused by the lack of a university in Everett or Marysville. In general terms, I see this branch campus as the solution to Snohomish county's educational needs 30 years ago, not 30 years from now.

As a member of the Ways and Means committee you will have an opportunity to question supporters of the new UW branch this week. I hope you use this meeting to challenge the need for this massive capital expenditure. I would like to see discussion of other options, such as online or hybrid (online/in-person) programs and mini-branch campuses such as Central's branch campuses at Edmonds CC, Everett CC and Highline CC.