Urquhart, co-chairman of the higher education appropriations subcommittee, introduced a handful of ideas Wednesday he hopes will turn into legislation that could improve Utah’s colleges and universities. He plans to start a discussion that could develop into concrete legislation.

“I think we have a good system. I think it’s a sound system, but I do think it’s an under-performing system,” he said at a press conference at the state Capitol.

One of Urquhart’s primary concerns relates to the number of students who require remedial courses upon entering college.

“Many of our high school students are graduating from high school unprepared for college, unprepared for the workforce,” he said.

That’s because the higher education system doesn’t have high expectations for its incoming students, he said, and that needs to change. Urquhart proposes higher admission standards and adaptive testing at the high school level could reduce the need for remediation by better preparing students.

What’s more, eliminating remedial courses at the University of Utah and Utah State for students straight out of high school would show teenagers a lot is expected out of them. Non-traditional students would still have the option to take remedial courses at those schools if they needed to brush up.

“At our two research institutions in particular, we should make sure that our students are prepared,” he said.

Another problem facing the state is that too few of Utah’s students finish college once they start, Urquhart said, particularly young women.

“If we have students starting and not completing, then they’re not getting that all-important certificate that tells the world they know something,” he said. “That’s a frighteningly expensive way to get education.”

The senator said there isn’t enough flexibility within the current higher education framework. Students who are fathers and mothers or who work full-time are more likely to drop out due to not being able to conform to their school’s schedule. If colleges and universities collaborated and shared their various online curriculum, students statewide could benefit from the courses already in place at schools such as USU and Weber State.

“Let’s break down these silos,” he said.

The Utah System of Higher Education released a statement Wednesday thanking Urquhart for opening up the dialogue.

“Our state is fortunate to have exceptional colleges and universities that provide students with a wealth of post-secondary opportunities, and we welcome input from the Senator and his colleagues on achieving even greater excellence in our system of higher education,” according to the statement.

Urquhart said his proposals are still in the preliminary stages, and he welcomes feedback at www.SteveU.com. He plans to present his ideas at the higher education appropriations subcommittee on Nov. 17. More…

While some state schools al­ready have admissions require­ments, most — including Dixie State College — have an open enrollment system where any­one is allowed to register for classes. As a result, many students come into school un­prepared, end up needing re­medial classes to catch up, and for the most part end of dropping out before they fin­ish, Urquhart said.

“This is a huge cost to taxpay­ers right now,” Urquhart said, pointing out that nearly two­thirds of Utah’s college students fail to graduate. “I’d like to see if we can put that burden on them a little earlier, where they have to show they’re prepared.”

In addition, many college graduates are finding it difficult to get a job even with their de­grees, indicating a move toward more job skills and technical training may be more appropri­ate for some of the students who now head to a four-year college, Urquhart contends.

“We need to be thinking a lot more about the marketplace than we are right now,” he said, adding that the new rule should apply only to incoming high school graduates. Nontraditional students returning to school would not be included.

It is not a new issue. David Buhler, associate commissioner of the Utah System of Higher Education, said there is always a balancing act between wanting students who are prepared and successful in college, while still meeting the ethical expectation of offering educational opportu­nities to everyone.

“There’s a tension there, obvi­ously,” he said. “We don’t want to have a lot of people who aren’t ready and who aren’t able to suc­ceed. The trick is figuring out where to draw the line.”

There have been increased ef­forts in recent years to bridge that gap, Buhler said, pointing out the Regents’ Scholarship, offered to Utah high school students who take more difficult classes, and some individualized programs at state schools where incoming students are offered different class options depending on their abilities. More…

Buhler, a former Utah senator and political science professor at the U, spoke at the Associated Students of the University of Utah’s Civic Engagement Conference  on Friday.

He would not give names, but said the legislators questioning the funding likely hold that position because of “a misunderstanding and not a real appreciation for what this (education) means.”

Students and student leaders from Utah schools including the U, Utah State University and Salt Lake Community College, attended the conference. The attendees gathered in the Hinckley Institute of Politics Caucus Room for opening remarks from Kirk Jowers, director of the Institute.

“There’s very few people who don’t want a better education system,” Jowers said. The U is “becoming more of a private school” and public funding has become a smaller portion of the U’s budget, he said.

The goal of the conference was to teach students how to more effectively communicate with legislators, and essentially act as lobbyists on behalf of higher education, said Don Willie, director of ASUU Government Relations.

“If higher ed gets cut, everybody pays for it,” he said. “So we want to make sure we’re a united front.”

“Our really entire goal is to help students understand that the Legislature is the one who makes this happen,” Willie said, emphasizing that legislators’ votes directly affect tuition dollars. More…

Nearly 80% of Utah’s legislators have post-secondary degrees and (as you’ll read) I feel their support for higher education should come easily. However it seems there is a disconnect between higher education and legislative action. In this opinion, I speculate why this may be the case.

Anyhow, here’s what I wrote in it’s entirety, but please check out the Chronicle of Higher Education’s website to learn more about their Degrees in the Statehouse series:

Those of us who work in public higher education wonder why state legislators don’t make post-secondary education a higher priority when deciding state budgets. With that question in mind, not long ago I invited several legislators to join a television program I hosted on our educational station.

During their interviews, it was clear that while their understanding of how higher education operates varied greatly, overall they understood and supported the logic for a strong higher-education system and how critical it is to the state’s economic growth and essential for personal success. On a personal level, their children attended college, and they loved their own college experiences. I pushed for negative comments but only got a few, about faculty tenure, irrelevant degrees, and inefficiencies.

My conclusion is that higher education has won the academic argument with policy makers. However, we haven’t been able to convert the academic argument into political action. The big question is, Why not? One Utah legislator answered that he simply doesn’t hear from constituents about supporting higher education, because they’re more concerned with roads, unemployment, and taxes.

We are losing for three reasons. First, the public sees higher education as a private, not a public good. Second, our depressed economy has put a premium on jobs and economic security. Third, political ideology reigns supreme, and pragmatic support of the educational “establishment” has been devalued.

The chasm between the academic argument and political action will shrink only if we can mobilize legislators with college degrees to support our enterprise. Political support for higher education should come easily, as most legislators have degrees. Yet higher education is not getting vigorous advocacy from its graduates. Perhaps a college degree has only helped those legislators understand their basic role: representing the interests, values, and beliefs of their constituents.

Higher education must let elected officials know that it’s in their interest to support colleges. We also have to sell the public on the value of what we do by reconnecting with constituents. And, finally, we must have a serious conversation about what has prevented more-vigorous advocacy. Only then can we close the gap between the academic argument and legislative action.

To read this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, click here.

As you may know, I served as a Michigan State Senator for 12 years. During that time I participated in many similar budget show-downs. I have many stories to tell of how final budget deals are put together as politicians have to give up their pet programs (i.e. earmarks) in order to balance the budget. Two things really help in forcing a final compromise: specific times needed for implementing a budget and constitutional spending limits. The problem with Washington budget making is that they have neither constraint.

The compromise agreement reached this week would not have happened without the pressure of a governmental closure at a specific time. House Republicans were smart (from their perspective) in forcing a “showdown.” The intense pressure generated by a specific time for action coupled with public scrutiny led the politicians to agree on the compromises needed to keep government operating. House Republicans “won” the showdown by forcing further budget cuts.

What happened last week in Washington is atypical at the national level. It is more typical what happens at the state level on a yearly basis. Washington has historically avoided difficult policy compromises by providing continuing resolutions. For example in higher education, in 2008 Congress finally reauthorized the Higher Education Opportunity Act after five years and fourteen extensions of the deadline.

Washington politicians can also duck tough compromises by adding to the national debt. Basically, our friends in Washington can spend what they want. Republicans like to spend money on the military and cut taxes. Democrats like to spend on social programs and keep taxes higher. The combination leads to the debt being so huge that it is almost impossible to comprehend.

In contrast to Washington, Utah politicians are forced to make tough decisions annually. The constitution Utah limits the legislature to 45 days and requires a balanced budget. These two restrictions place considerable pressure on the legislature to make the compromises necessary. The final week of the Utah legislative session is filled with stress as various interests, including higher education, vie for dollars and legislative changes.

Typically Higher Education is at a disadvantage when the final compromises are made. Legislators point to our ability to finance education through tuition. Higher education is also often viewed as a “non-mandatory” expenditure. Enrollment increases in K-12 education, Medicaid expenses and prison expenses are often viewed as mandatory. Thus, with the 45 days coming to a close, a multitude of needs being expressed, mandatory cost in specific programs, higher education often doesn’t receive the priority many legislators would like to give it.

Utah and most other states are not similar to Washington D.C. We have a forty five day legislative session and a balanced budget amendment. When the state borrows it is for capital projects—roads or buildings—and the debt is retired quickly. The mechanisms are in place to force appropriate compromises. While higher education may not always win when the final decisions are made, the state is better off with government having to make difficult decisions about competing expenditures.

Gov. Gary Herbert demonstrated foresight and leadership with his veto of Senate Bill 229, “Transportation Funding Revisions.” While well-intentioned to help meet the state’s need for highways, this bill would have actually tied the hands of the Legislature and governor and made it more difficult to fund other critical needs.

In effect, this bill said that highways are so important that they are automatically funded without any discussion or debate or consideration of other state needs. Rather than discussing an override, the Legislature should also push the pause button.

A main power of any legislature is the “power of the purse,” the ability to decide how tax dollars are spent among a number of important functions of government.

SB229 would have handcuffed the Legislature by automatically increasing the amount of state sales tax dedicated to highway construction by 30 percent of the growth, or nearly $60 million by 2013.

This $60 million is on top of the $295 million annually directed from sales tax to highways, together with the millions collected from the gasoline tax and automobile registrations, the traditional source of highway funding. Legislative budgets are prepared based on current law. So if this bill became law, it means this $355 million a year would be off the table before the Legislature can even consider funding public safety, corrections, human services, health and, of course, higher education.

Historically in Utah, the state sales tax is how state government funded not only its portion of the cost of higher education but also everything else to aid the public good. Since the mid 1990s, higher education has also been funded through income tax, though sales tax is still an important source of funding colleges and universities.

In the state budget just passed, it accounts for 69 percent of higher education funding ($462.7 million out of $667.8 million in tax funds). For other state programs it is their only source of funding.

I support funding transportation; we all need and use the highways. But as commissioner of higher education I also have an obligation to point out that our state colleges and universities are also in need of state support.

Since 2008 our colleges and universities have grown by about 20,000 full-time students, while state funding has decreased by over $100 million. Some of this has been made up by students through tuition increases, and some covered by more efficiencies. Legislators should not arbitrarily limit the ability of other state services such as education to make their sales pitch for needed state dollars.

If SB229 were implemented, it would likely hurt our highest growth institutions the most — Utah Valley University, Dixie State College and Salt Lake Community College — as they have absorbed the most students during the past three years of budget cuts. Legislators who support these institutions have a good reason to be grateful the governor acted as he did.

Finally, it is important to note that the State Board of Regents, Governor’s Commission on Educational Excellence, and the business-led group Prosperity 2020 have all rallied around the goal of increasing the level of education to where 66 percent of our adult population has some training or education beyond high school.

If the motivation for SB229 was to aid the state’s economic development efforts, I submit that equally, if not more important, is a well-educated workforce. In that case, an autopilot increase of sales tax to higher education would also be in order.

It is clear that for Utah to prosper, we will need an increased level of educational attainment to be competitive with the rest of the country and, indeed, the rest of the world. This cannot be accomplished if we rely solely on students to fund expansion through their tuition.

It will also take support from the public through their representatives in the Legislature.

Gov. Gary Herbert held a ceremonial signing of legislation Wednesday that will largely finance the construction of the new facility at WSU’s satellite Davis campus. The state will bond to cover $31.5 million of the estimated $40 million project.

“We cannot have long-term sustained economic growth in the state unless we have a robust and strong educational component,” Herbert said before signing the bills, HB4 and SB5.

The 120,000-square-foot building will facilitate 1,500 college students and several hundred-charter high school students from the Northern Utah Academy of Math, Engineering and Science. (NUAMES)

Evening classes have filled WSU’s current Davis campus building to the brim, with working professionals from Hill Air Force Base constituting a large percent of the nontraditional students pursuing one of the 9 master’s degrees offered at the campus.

“There’s a need for economic development and continued education for those working at Hill,” said the senate sponsor of the two bills, Sen. Stuart Adams, R-Layton.

For the many HAFB employees enrolled in WSU’s engineering program, the Davis campus is a viable option, Adams said. The campus is located less then a mile west of HAFB just off of state Road 193.

The building will also provide masters-level courses to Alliant Techsystems employees. ATK recently announced it will open a Davis County facility that will eventually add 800 jobs.

To read the rest of this article from the Deseret News, click here.