Blog

After Gov. Tom Wolf’s Feb. 5 budget address, we talked with legislators about the governor’s proposal related to higher education. Wolf’s plan includes $7 million more for Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education, a 1.5 percent increase from last year.

“It’s a good foundation,” Sen. Vincent Hughes said of the investment in the State System. “Hopefully we can build on top of that.”

“We must continue to hold our commitment to those young people, understanding that they are the future workers that fuel Pennsylvania,” Rep. Jordan Harris said.

Wolf’s proposal is a “step in the right direction,” Rep. Matthew Bradford said.

Sen. Andy Dinniman discussed the importance of funding the State System when we encountered him in the Capitol rotunda.

“Hopefully we can keep that (State System funding increase) in there, and maybe we can get a little more for our kids, but I think it’s a good start,” Sen. Lindsey Williams said.

“Putting that foot forward with an increase, not a cut, not a level fund, I think is a statement of big proportions that we recognize the value of higher education,” Rep. David Millard told us.

APSCUF President Dr. Kenneth M. Mash weighed in as well:

Watch APSCUF’s newsletter and website for more information about advocating for State System funding as the budget process continues. You can start by contacting your legislators to encourage them to support public high education in Pennsylvania.

Speaking of government relations, APSCUF has an additional Twitter account for all things public higher education in Pennsylvania. Be sure to follow @APSCUFGR on Twitter.

Photo/Pexels

Healthy U is back online with Sharecare. On Feb. 1, 2019, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education released information about its revamped Healthy U wellness program. Employees and their enrolled spouses/domestic partners who create a Sharecare account and complete the RealAge Test (wellness profile) before the May 31, 2019, deadline qualify for lower healthcare premiums beginning in July 2019. The current Healthy U program runs Jan. 1, 2019, through May 31, 2019. To get started, check out the Healthy U Information Guide.

Click here to visit APSCUF’s forms-and-benefits page to learn more about available resources. If you have questions about any benefits or services, please contact Bim Arthun, membership-services specialist, at 800-932-0587, ext. 3021, or email her at .

APSCUF stands in solidarity with United Teachers Los Angeles teachers who are on strike. Below is APSCUF President Dr. Kenneth M. Mash’s letter to the UTLA president.

Jan. 22, 2019

Dear President Caputo-Pearl,

On behalf of the more than 5,000 faculty and coach members of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF) employed at the 14 state-owned universities, I write to say that we continue to stand with you and your colleagues as your strike enters its second week.

As educators, we fully appreciate the importance of what you and your colleagues do for the city of Los Angeles, the State of California, and the future of our nation. APSCUF members went on strike in 2016, and we fully comprehend what a difficult decision it is. Nevertheless, there are times when we — educators — must be the ones to stick up for our students and their futures.

Your goals of manageable class sizes, increased staff, fair pay, and a sensible curriculum are necessary ingredients for students’ success. We are inspired by your resilience and your concern for your students.

We hope that the reports of progress are accurate, but we will stand with you until you believe you have achieved a successful outcome. Please let me know if there is anything we can do.

In solidarity,

Kenneth M. Mash
APSCUF president

Today we welcomed Robert Henninger, left, and Jonathan Dubow as APSCUF organizers. For the next six weeks, they will reach out to adjunct faculty and coaches at Shippensburg and West Chester universities.

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

Chairwoman Shapira, governors, Chancellor Greenstein, university presidents, and guests.

My name is Dr. Kenneth Mash, and I am the president of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties. APSCUF represents the faculty and coaches at our great universities.

I wanted to comment briefly on two items this morning. The first is the system redesign, and the second the Board of Governors Policy 1983-13-A, which you will discuss tomorrow.

With regard to the system redesign, I want to thank Chancellor Greenstein for the broad discussion that has already taken place with regard to the document. There is a lot in there, and as a conceptual document, there is a lot to be excited about. We do see in the document the potential for many new opportunities for students that can arise out of sharing system where universities work interdependently – to use the terminology of the report.

There are other items that we believe will require greater discussion. Many of those issues revolve around implementation, but some of those also revolve around policy. One example comes from the student-success portion. Even at first glance, the notion that one of the only three indicators of student success is salary by graduates, raises questions about the what type of success the System will be prioritizing in the future and how that may impact the future of the student body and the academic programs we offer at our universities.

This is but one example: As I said, there is a lot in the document. Having said that, however, I am confident that there will be ongoing conversations about the many different aspects of the redesign.  Our hope is that these conversation will take place as a matter of progress not as a dilatory tactic. We are confident that they will take place because that has been the tone Chancellor Greenstein has set.

With regard to Policy 1983-13-A, the faculty continue to have some concern about when alternates will participate on search committees for university presidents. We would like those alternates to participate on the committees so that they are up-to-speed – much like alternate jurors – should they be called on to serve. Our understanding is that currently the alternates are only involved should they need to step in – even if that is at the middle or the end of the process.

Further, while we are on the topic of the policy, we hope that the Board will at some time assess the use of the consulting firms for the process. We have often questioned what is gained by the use of these firms, particularly since the same names seem to reappear at our universities. If nothing else, we would hope that the Board would clarify the governors’ expectations of these firms and that a mechanism be designed to assess their overall value given the high pricetags of many of these consultants.

Thank you for your attention.