Blog

Delegates listen to Treasurer Chris Hallen’s report at legislative assembly in April. Photo/Kathryn Morton

APSCUF delegates elected officers-at-large and continued the process of enacting a phased-retirement side-letter for faculty members during its 197th legislative assembly, April 26–27 in Williamsport.

The legislative assembly voted to send the side-letter (login required) to the membership for ratification with a positive recommendation that it be ratified. With semesters over or nearly concluded across the 14 campuses, delegates also voted to conduct the election electronically.

Candidates for three officer-at-large positions on APSCUF’s executive council spoke in a forum Friday afternoon. Saturday-morning elections reinstated incumbents Kara Laskowski of Shippensburg University and Joyce Overly of Clarion University. Ben Shaevitz of Slippery Rock University won the third seat. Officer-at-large Cassandra Reyes of West Chester University opted not to run again but said she plans to remain active in APSCUF, and President Kenneth M. Mash thanked her for her service.

As usual, delegates heard reports from APSCUF’s statewide committees. During dinner Friday, Cheyney delegate Herbert Black discussed issues at the university.

This little union punches beyond its weight class, setting the standard that other unions try to replicate, Mash told delegates at the conclusion of the two-day assembly. Members’ work and solidarity make a difference, he said.

Click here to view additional photos on Facebook.

Our guest post today is by Dr. Glenn W. Richardson Jr. of Kutztown University. These are his edited comments to APSCUF’s legislative assembly in Williamsport in April. Richardson chairs APSCUF’s statewide legislative committee and is a professor in Kutztown’s Department of Political Science and Public Administration.

Over the years, I have spoken to you about the great challenges and opportunities that we in the organized labor movement face.

Our challenges have not lessened.

We are decades deep into a revolt of the overclass. A billionaire-led disruption of the institutions of our democracy. We are not winning.

When this plutocratic uprising began in the early 1970s, workers’ share of the gross domestic product had reached a high of 52 percent. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, workers’ share bottomed out at 42 percent. By the fourth quarter of 2016, it had risen to 43 percent. It is lower now. (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, St. Louis Fed)

Meanwhile, business profits continue to rise. They accounted for less than 12 percent of domestic income in the 1980s; today that share has nearly doubled, to over 20 percent. (Kiernan, Paul. 2019. “Workers Claim a Shrinking Slice of the Pie.” Wall Street Journal. February 25. A2.)

Perhaps that understates the degree of economic concentration we face. Since 1980, the income of the top .01 percent has skyrocketed by more than 400 percent. The share of the nation’s income captured by the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution actually shrunk over that period. (Piketty, Saenz and Zucman n.d., Bureau of Economic Analysis; cited in Leonhardt, David. “How the Upper Middle Class in America is Really Doing.” New York Times. February 25, 2019. A 23.)

Since 1979, median weekly earnings have risen by less than 1 percent. The net worth of the typical American family is lower today than what it was 20 years ago. Perhaps most disturbing: life expectancy is lower than it was at the beginning of this decade (Leonhardt, David. 2018. “When CEO’s Cared About America.” New York Times. December 3. A27.)

Over this period, local labor markets have become increasingly dominated by a smaller number of employers. Unions have been weakened. Today’s employment contracts are packed with noncompete agreements and other impediments to worker mobility.

It wasn’t always this way.

In the post-war era, corporate America embraced a mixed economy, acknowledging the role of government regulation and strong labor unions. During the 1950s and 1960s, middle-class incomes grew faster than those at the top (Leonhardt, David. 2018. “When CEO’s Cared About America.” New York Times. December 3. A27.)

Today’s economic elite prefer a different path. According to a study of 600 elite technology company leaders and founders by two Stanford professors, our typical tech overlord “believes in free markets, supports gay marriage, likes environmental protection, hates unions, and distrusts regulation.” They support higher taxes to fund social programs, but prefer that they be run by entrepreneurs, such as charter schools. (Tarnoff, Ben and Moira Weigel. 2019. “Next Gen: Is Silicon Valley growing away from its liberal and libertarian origins.” The New Republic. (March) pp. 4-6.

The evidence does not support their preferences. For example, a major report by the Rand Corporation found that a $575 million project partly funded by the Gates Foundation to use student test scores to evaluate teachers (thereby improving student outcomes such as increased graduation rates for low-income minority students) failed.

This after an earlier Gates initiative to shrink schools with high dropout rates also failed. (https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/2009-bill-gates-annual-letter.pdf; reported in Strauss, Valerie. 2018. “Bill Gates spent hundreds of millions of dollars to improve teaching. New report says it was a bust.” Washington Post. June 29. Accessed online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/06/29/bill-gates-spent-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-to-improve-teaching-new-report-says-it-was-a-bust/?utm_term=.70d34e75951c on April 26, 2019.

In his book Winners Take All, (Penguin Random House, 2018) Anand Giridharadas notes the paradox: ever concentrated wealth in the hands of a philanthropic elite seeking to do good but failing. In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now he asked: is the do-gooding not working? Not working fast enough? “Or is it that charity and philanthropy are part of how they maintain the system that allows them to keep taking it all.”

But APSCUF, there is hope!

And comes from the very belly of the beast. Tech workers in Silicon Valley are rising up! They are challenging corporate behemoths like Google, that lobbied to weaken workers’ rights to organize. If Google had its way, the company could legally punish anyone who used company email to organize protests, circulate petitions, or form a union. Google workers have already walked out to protest sexual harassment, military contract and collusion with Chinese censors.

And the thing is, these tech workers are saying they are inspired by us: by the educators who have stepped to the front of the organized labor movement in recent years. “A Google worker who helped lead the anti-Pentagon campaign last year cited the influence of ongoing teacher strikes: ‘It’s time for us to join the new labor movement,’ the worker told Jacobin.” (Tarnoff and Weigel. 2019. “Next Gen: Is Silicon Valley growing away from its liberal and libertarian origins.” The New Republic. (March) pp. 4-6.)

So there is hope, APSCUF!

And it starts with us!

And we will not give up!

Thank you, APSCUF!

Students and faculty traveled from across Pennsylvania to attend the March 27 rally in the Pennsylvania Capitol Rotunda. Photo/Kathryn Morton

Thank you to our members and students who journeyed to Harrisburg last month to stand up for affordable higher education at the Pennsylvania Promise rally. If you missed the event or want to relive it, view photos on Facebook or click here to watch the rally in its entirety.

With the rally over, what can you do next to further the cause? Click here to learn about additional actions via the Pennsylvania Promise website, including signing a petition. Please make sure you’re following the PA Promise on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Use #PApromise and #affordablecollegenow in your online discussions. Learn more about the Pennsylvania Promise, of which APSCUF is a partner, at PApromise.org.

APSCUF President Dr. Kenneth M. Mash’s comments as prepared:

Chairwoman Shapira, governors, Chancellor Greenstein, presidents, and guests:

My name is Kenneth M. Mash, and I am the president of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, which is the union that represents the System’s faculty and coaches.

My colleagues and I are quite engaged with the System redesign. We see it as a chance to provide additional opportunities and to make some long-needed changes to the State System. It also has the potential to more wisely spend the Commonwealth’s dollars, which benefits all of our students and the citizens of the Commonwealth.

However, we do not view it as a panacea, particularly with regard to the crisis in college affordability.

The numbers presented yesterday with regard to the enrollment of people from lesser means were startling. But those numbers tell only part of the story. A story that is the result of the Commonwealth’s persistent disinvestment in public higher education. The result is increasing college costs.

Too many make the difficult choice not to go, which means that we cannot live up to the System’s legislative mandate to provide an affordable education. Continuous cuts means that we have cut out opportunities for students, which threatens our mandate to provide a high-quality college education. Those who do attend have to take on increasing debt.

The numbers are startling and, frankly, embarrassing.

There are tens of billions of dollars — $62 billion — in outstanding student debt in this Commonwealth.

If the governor’s 2019 proposed state appropriation is approved, funding for the State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) will be similar to what it was in 2005–06.

Of course, we appreciate the recent reinvestment in public higher education, especially for PASSHE. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Commonwealth has restored only $62.2 million of the $90.6 million cut in 2011. That $28 million difference does not even account for inflation!

In 1991–92, the state allocation accounted for 55% of the cost for a full-time student (FTE). Since 2003, this percentage has steadily declined, and as of 2017 the state accounted for only 27% of funding per FTE. And that number has continued to shrink. This means that our policymakers have decided that today’s students should pick up 73% or more of the cost.

Pennsylvania ranks 48th in educational appropriations per full-time student. Our funding is $3,521 below the national average per full-time student.

To keep things in perspective, it is interesting to see just how much our universities would be receiving if funding had kept up with inflation. Adjusting to 2019 dollars, the State System’s allocation of $465.2 million would be $600 million. But today, we receive only $475 million.

Our system is being starved, and it is not enough for policymakers to shrug their shoulders. This is a policy choice.

In its 2018 “Best States” report, U.S. News and World Report ranked Pennsylvania 50th for higher education. 50th in the U.S. News. 51st in average student loan debt. 49th in student loan debt per capita. 48th in higher education support per capita.

It’s an embarrassment. It’s more than an embarrassment. It has made it more and more difficult for every part of our universities to best serve our students. More important, these conscious policy decisions are hurting a generation by denying them a real opportunity for a college education or straddling them with ridiculous loans. The implications of this for every Pennsylvanian are enormous.

My point here is that it behooves all of us when we talk to our legislators to present them with these stark facts.

We are, of course, appreciative of whatever additional money is sent to the System. But the overall picture is an embarrassment. Our public officials need to hear this in loud terms from a multitude of voices, and we believe it is the duty of everyone associated with this System to make the case that this generation of students deserves better.

Thank you for your time and attention.

APSCUF President Dr. Kenneth M. Mash tells legislators about the crushing burden of debt students face during a joint policy hearing March 26. Photo/James Robinson of the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Caucus

APSCUF President Dr. Kenneth M. Mash’s comments as prepared:

Testimony of Dr. Kenneth M. Mash, president,
Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF)
Before the Senate and House Democratic Policy Committees on: “College Affordability in Pennsylvania”
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Room 418 Main Capitol Building

Chairwoman Boscola, Chairman Sturla and members of the committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about college affordability in Pennsylvania. My name is Dr. Kenneth M. Mash, and I am the president of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF). APSCUF represents about 5,500 faculty and coaches who work at Pennsylvania’s state-owned universities.

Senators and representatives, we have a crisis in our Commonwealth. The 2011 cuts and the pre- and post-recession defunding of higher education in Pennsylvania are having horrible consequences, and this does not bode well for our collective future. We are denying the American Dream to too many, and we are acting irresponsibly by drowning a generation in a sea of debt.

It begins with the underfunding of our public higher education, which leads to higher tuition and total college costs. Some just do not go; others take on ever increasing amounts of loans. The higher tuition and escalating total cost that result from underfunding have several concomitant but obvious results. Because costs continue to rise, enrollments decline at a rate that exceeds the drop in the number of college graduates. Because there are fewer students, fixed cost must be covered by fewer students, which requires additional tuition and fee increases, which leads to more debt. Because of the increased expense of public higher education, the private institutions become more competitive. They reach down to some of those who might otherwise attend a public institution by discounting their tuitions. They pay for this by increasing tuition for those in the middle class, which leads to additional tuition and additional debt. Meanwhile, we underfund PHEAA, which cannot keep up with the demand for grants, and that leads to more borrowing and more debt.

Billions of dollars — nearly $62 billion — in outstanding student debt means that graduates cannot afford to buy homes or cars, and they will delay starting a family. What would happen to that debt if a major recession were to hit and there were major job losses? Money that would otherwise be added to the economy is instead paid in interest to lenders. Employers who may want to move to Pennsylvania opt to go elsewhere because too many just cannot afford to go to college. It all begins with the underfunding of the entirety of public higher education.

Pennsylvania’s national standing with regard to public higher education continues to be an embarrassment, yet not doing anything substantial to fix the problem is the choice we have continually opted for. Make no mistake; as I reminded a public policy class last week, choosing to do nothing is a policy decision.

Year after year, we fail future generations by pricing them out and saddling them with mountains of student-loan debt. And too many of policymakers throw up their hands as if there is nothing that can be done. The facts are startling. If the 2019 proposed state appropriation is approved, funding for Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) will be similar what it was in 2005–06.

Of course, we appreciate the recent reinvestment in public higher education, especially for PASSHE. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Commonwealth has restored only $62.2 million of the $90.6 million cut in 2011. That $28 million difference does not even account for inflation!

When discussing affordability with some of our policymakers, I am often shocked that they will project their college experiences onto today’s students. There is simply no comparison. There is a direct correlation between state funding and tuition rates. In 1991–92, the state accounted for 55 percent of the cost for a full-time student (FTE). Since 2003, this percentage has steadily declined, and as of 2017 the state accounted for only 27 percent of funding per FTE. And that number has continued to shrink. Please let that sink in because it has been a policy choice. This Commonwealth decided that students should be pick up 73 percent of the cost, and now more.

It is incomprehensible that Pennsylvania ranks 48th in educational appropriations per full-time student. But we are. Our funding is $3,521 below the national average per full-time student. To put that in perspective, PASSHE’s chancellor last week said that if we increased funding to simply the national average, the 14 PASSHE universities could lower tuition by 22 percent. For students from working-class families, that would be a game-changer.

In 2013, a Maguire Associates study conducted for the State System examined the potential impact of increased costs on enrollment at state-owned universities, and it concluded that an increase of more than $3,000 in total college costs (tuition, fees, room and board costs, etc.) would lead to drastic reductions in enrollment. Moreover, the effects would be felt the worst at the five most cost-sensitive universities: Cheyney, Mansfield, Clarion, Edinboro, and California universities. It is not a coincidence that, years later, those five universities — having surpassed the $3,000 increase — are the ones confronting difficulties. They are also universities serving communities that desperately need affordable, high-quality higher education.

To keep things in perspective, it is interesting to see just how much our universities would be receiving if funding had kept up with inflation. Adjusting to 2019 dollars, the State System’s allocation $465.2 million would be $600 million. But today, we receive only $475 million. Our system is being starved, and the need to balance our books has seriously put our legislative mission — to provide an affordable, high-quality education — at risk. Study after study can be conducted, but it doesn’t change the reality. Our universities are underfunded. The fact that we are granting record numbers of degrees is a testament to all who work at our universities and our wonderful students.

We continue to hear from some lawmakers that “back in their day” they were able to work a minimum-wage job in the summer to pay for their education. I worked my way through college, too. But what we did just does not add up for today’s students. According to the Keystone Research Center, if one attended one of our state-owned universities in the 1970s, they could work 5.5 summers at a minimum-wage job to pay off four years’ tuition. Today, a student working a minimum-wage job would have to work 18.5 summers!

In its 2018 “Best States” report, U.S. New and World Report ranked Pennsylvania 50th for higher education. No lawmaker or resident of Pennsylvania should be proud of this ranking. 50th in the U.S. News. 51st in average student loan debt. 49th in student loan debt per capita. 49th in higher education support per capita. It’s an embarrassment.

When we first started looking into college affordability, I was upset for our students. But as we delved further and further into the numbers, I became angry as a father and a Pennsylvanian. What are we doing to this generation of young people?

During that policy class I taught last week, one of the students thanked me for being one of the few people over age 30 to care about the future of his generation. On his behalf, I want to thank you again for bringing attention to this issue. I would further like to thank those who support the Pennsylvania Promise, and those senators who have begun to tackle the problem of student debt. I look forward to the day when I can thank the governor and this legislature for finally tackling the problem of college affordability.