Blog

APSCUF President Dr. Kenneth M. Mash explains the importance of affordable higher education to the House Democratic Policy Committee July 18 at the University of Pittsburgh.

Testimony (as prepared) of Dr. Kenneth M. Mash
President, Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties
Before the House Democratic Policy Committee
on “The Pennsylvania Promise”
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
University of Pittsburgh
William Pitt Union (Kurtzman Room, 1st Floor)

Chairman Sturla and members of the committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about this extremely important issue. 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.

My colleagues and I have had the opportunity to witness students speak about what a difference the Pennsylvania Promise would have made to their lives had it been available to them.

Jackie, a junior at Lock Haven shared this story:

We heard multiple stories like this one; they are all too typical of the students we meet in our classrooms. Students like Jackie have made extraordinary sacrifices to earn a college degree. They are practically superheroes.

Yet, I can’t help but to wonder how many students cannot do it? How many students must drop out because they can’t afford it or because they can’t maintain grades because their energies are expended on working multiple jobs? Why should they have to?

Even those students who manage to do face enormous debt when they are done. Mary, a graduate of Kutztown University, wrote to us that:

“The cost of attending college has left me in so much debt that I found myself taking a job outside of my field of study to pay my bills. I am unable to pay my full student loan payments, so I will be paying back more money in a longer period of time. In my senior year, my financial aid was cut so it wouldn’t cover my tuition, so the private loan I had to apply for to cover my rent went straight to the school, leaving me without money to pay for my housing. I moved out of that apartment two years ago, and I owe my landlord double of the rent because I had no way of paying him. I am stuck living at home because I cannot afford to be on my own, let alone my credit does not allow me to be approved for anything.”

I am often concerned that too many policy-makers incorrectly project their college experience on the students of today. There is just no comparison. When the Commonwealth subsidized two-thirds of the cost of college, it was possible to find part-time to help pay for most of it or to have some extra spending money in one’s pocket. Today when the Commonwealth pays less than 25 percent of the cost, students can work full time and still cross the graduation stage to face tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

I have often heard it said that, “not everyone should go to college.” Of course this is true. But everyone should have a fair opportunity to go if they meet the admission standards.

The universities comprising Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education have been and they continue to be the universities for working-class Pennsylvanians. A recent study by the Keystone Research Center and Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center confirmed what many of us already understood to be true: “Because of the State System’s greater access for working families, its mobility rate — defined here as the share of all students who come from the bottom 60% of families AND then move into the top 40% of earners (total pre-tax individual earnings) as adults in their early thirties – is 22%, compared to just 14% for the top 10 elite private colleges.”

The most disturbing element of the study was that should the 2012 cohort be propelled up to the top 40 percent at the same rate as those who attended college between 1999 and 2004, the overall mobility rate will fall 12 percent, and that is due to a drop in the number of students from bottom 60 percent families who can afford to enroll at our universities — 41 percent in 2002, and 35 percent in 2013. (study, p. 9)

In 2013, Maguire Associates conducted a study for the State System. That study 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 University, Mansfield University, Clarion University, Edinboro University, and California University. It is not a coincidence that, years later, those five universities are the ones confronting difficulties. They are also universities serving communities that desperately need affordable, high-quality higher education.

While many hone in on tuition, for families who decide what college to attend or whether to attend college at all, the bottom line is the most important factor. What we know about total college costs is not good. According to a recent study, tuition and fees now account for nearly three quarters (73 percent) of educational costs at State System schools compared with half that level (37 percent) in 1983–84. Further, total costs adjusted for inflation have risen faster for students because of large increases in the costs of room and board, which have increased by 76 percent (a hike of $4,567 in 2016 dollars) since 2000 compared with 51 percent ($3,351) for tuition and fees. Total college costs have risen by almost $10,000 since 2000, from about $15,000 to about $25,000 per year, and they have gone from one-fifth of median family income to more than one-third (35 percent). The costs have exceeded the $3,000 benchmark identified by Maguire Associates.

It is impossible to discuss total college cost without discussing the State’s allocation. The reality is that even with this year’s 3.3 percent increase (and we do heartily thank you for that), the inflation-adjusted funding for the State System is more than 25 percent below the 2007–08 level and a third below its 2000–01 level. Further, when one looks at Gross State Product, funding for the State System today is only 42 percent of its 1983–84 level.

Pennsylvania ranks 47th out of the 50 states in per-student funding. Responding to the cuts during the Great Recession, our universities sought to survive by raising tuition and fees and increasing enrollment. However, that response was limited because the bubble in the number of high school graduates was soon to burst. The increases in college costs have meant that students and their families have had to confront increasing debt or the choice to not go to college at all.

Increasing student debt does not serve anyone. While there is a reasonable argument to be made that students should be invested in their own education, those arguments ought to be understood along with the realization that our economy is hurt when graduates are not making purchases or otherwise putting money into the economy, but are rather paying principal and interest to the banks. Further, it ignores the plain fact that public higher education is a public good that reaps benefits not just to the individual graduate, but also to the Commonwealth overall.

This is a real problem that reinforces the difficulties of families, particularly in struggling communities. The KRC/PBPC study found that the Commonwealth ranks 40th for the share of adults ages 25–64 with more than a high school degree. In more than half of Pennsylvania counties (35), this share is lower than any of the 50 states (i.e., lower than West Virginia’s 48.1 percent).

This pattern is likely to continue because of the low percentage of high school students who are seriously contemplating college — that is, the number of students and families who actually fill out FAFSA forms. The contrast between Pennsylvania at its northern tier and the southern tier of New York is particularly stark. New York’s counties show 5 to 25 percent more students filling out the forms.  Because these numbers came before New York enacted its free-tuition plan, we might expect that this differential will increase.

Unless we are willing to concede that Pennsylvanians are less motivated or less intelligent than their northern neighbors — and we certainly are not — we must understand that something else is going on here, and that something is that college is increasingly not affordable.

Recently the State System’s vice chancellor said, “it turns out that our current pricing strategies are driving the very students that we were hoping to have access to a State System education out of a State System education.” The system said the biggest drop-off has been students with family incomes in the $48,000 to $75,000 range. This is where the Pennsylvania Promise proposal outlined in House Bill 2444 sponsored by Chairman Jim Roebuck (D- Philadelphia) and State System Alum Rep. Jordan Harris (D- Philadelphia) could greatly benefit our students.

House Bill 2444 outlines an ambitious proposal that stemmed out of the Keystone Research Center’s report titled “The Pennsylvania Promise: Making College Affordable and Securing Pennsylvania’s Economic Future.” This proposal would do the following:

1. Cover up to four years of tuition and fees for a student at any of the Commonwealth’s 14 public community colleges. This would cover up to an associate degree with the four-year range covering those nontraditional students who may not be able to finish in two years
2. Cover four years of tuition and fees for any recent high school graduate with a family income less than or equal to $110,000 per year and accepted into one of the 14 universities in Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education
3. Cover four years of tuition and fees not to exceed the State System tuition rate for students with a family income less than or equal to $110,000 for students accepted into a state-related university
4. For students who qualify, the Pennsylvania Promise would cover along with tuition and fees room and board for students with a family income less than or equal to $48,000 5. Finance a grant program for adults seeking in-demand skills and industry-recognized credentials, as well as college credit

The Pennsylvania Promise would be a game-changer for students and all citizens of the state. The Pennsylvania Promise would make college truly accessible, and it would free many students from a debt burden, allowing them to contribute to the economy more quickly by doing the things that previous generations could afford to do, like purchasing a car or a home.

The Pennsylvania Promise would help even students who did not qualify for grants. When more students attend a university, you have more students contributing to the fixed costs. Universities that saw enrollment gains could even afford to lower costs for all students.

In its 2018 “Best States” report, U.S. New and World Report ranked Pennsylvania 50th in higher education. No lawmaker or resident of Pennsylvania should be proud of this ranking. Something must be done, and the Pennsylvania Promise is the right thing to do.

As I prepare to enter my junior year at Clarion University, my passion for funding higher education in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has never been higher. I believe we should invest in public higher education to reach a solution that works for students, faculty, and coaches. This begins with the Pennsylvania Promise.

John Danvers, APSCUF intern

In this piece, which originated as a research paper I wrote for my English class last year, I’ll also outline how Pennsylvania can make that promise happen.

Quite simply, the Pennsylvania Promise is “a plan to make higher education affordable in the Commonwealth.” For students coming from a family income of less than or equal to $110,000 per year, that student would have four years of tuition and fees covered at any one of the 14 State System schools. The Pennsylvania Promise would also cover tuition and fees at any community college in the Commonwealth, as well as four years of tuition and fees “not to exceed the State System tuition rate” at any state-related university.

PA Promise legislation is in the State House as HB 2444 and in the State Senate as Bill 1111. It provides a pathway for students who may not otherwise be considering college to attend school and achieve the American Dream. Whether that Pennsylvanian is from Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, it would allow those who need help the most to lift themselves out of poverty.

The economic benefits the Commonwealth receives from facilitating affordable higher education are tremendous. From a microeconomic perspective, Pew Research Center says, “the gap in median annual earnings between a worker with a high school diploma and one with a college degree is $19,550. According to a Pew Research analysis of census data, over the course of a forty-year working life, the typical college graduate earns an estimated $550,000 more than the typical high school graduate, even after factoring in the costs and foregone earnings associated with going to college.”

Also, I think it’s important to note the macroeconomic benefits reciprocated from funding higher education. Research published by Philip A. Trostel, an economics professor at the University of Maine, shows that “college education creates substantial state and local tax revenues. Each bachelor’s degree leads to roughly $55,600 in additional state income taxes over a lifetime. In present value using a 3% discount rate, bachelor’s degree holders pay, on average, 2.5 times as much state income tax as high school graduates without college.”

In translating this outlook for long-term government revenue flows, the government spends about $74,500 in aiding students as they pursue a bachelor’s degree. After graduation, college graduates put back $471,000 into the government budget once they become employed and begin paying taxes. As Trostel writes, this is “more than six times the gross government cost per college degree.”

The possibility of upward mobility, along with the aforementioned benefits of students attending college, would be an immense benefit to the Commonwealth and something I believe our legislators should seriously consider facilitating. How? It’s time to implement a severance tax to fund public higher education in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is “the only major gas-producing state in the country without a severance tax,” according to NPR. Gov. Tom Wolf has asked the Commonwealth to tax the Marcellus Shale industry 6.5 percent for the value of its revenue, a policy projected to generate $217.8 million dollars for the state. So far, however, the policy has not been implemented.

A severance tax on the Marcellus Shale industry is the most rational way to make public higher education affordable for all Pennsylvanians.

—John Danvers,
APSCUF intern

West Chester University Professor Victoria Tischio, right, discusses membership with Chabria Thomas, State APSCUF’s director of organizing, during Tischio’s APSCUF faculty internship in Harrisburg. Photo/Kathryn Morton

We are delighted to have West Chester University Professor Victoria Tischio as our faculty intern this week. She will be in the Harrisburg office interacting with staff members and observing the spectrum of union administration.

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

Chairwoman Shapira, governors, university presidents, and guests,

Good morning. My name is Ken Mash, and I am the president of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF), which represents the faculty and coaches at our 14 great universities.

On behalf of our membership, I would like to welcome the members of the Board and thank you and all of the governors for your commitment of time and energy for the cause of providing high-quality, affordable, public higher education for Pennsylvanians.

The story of our universities is the story of success. Every semester, students are doing amazing things, and they graduate and go off to contribute the success of this Commonwealth. That is the narrative that should undergird every discussion involving the State System of Higher Education and its universities. Despite enormous challenges, we — all of us — get the job done.

Of course, it is always fair to ask what the System and our universities could do better and to point out the continued challenges that our universities and, more important, our students face when our universities are underfunded. The increase to the budget helps, and we are appreciative of the efforts by the governor and our legislative leaders to secure additional funding. Still, there are questions of affordability and sustainability that will remain.

We have had two studies that have been pretty critical of the System, and it is disturbing to think that those studies have created among some a false narrative of “failure.” Again, the story of our System is one of success, and no study can or should take that away.

But we can do things better. Over the past few weeks, I have been soliciting suggestions from my colleagues about what the System can and ought to do so that we might improve on that record of success. When our recommendations are complete, we will share those with the Board, the new chancellor, and other parties who share an interest in making positive changes to the System.

For the moment and in the interest of time, I would like to highlight three of these, which should not be news to anyone. We have been asking for these for years and years:

1. Create a joint application process that allows potential students to apply to more than one university at a time. This application should allow all universities to see who is applying, their application status and the major they are seeking. This will allow all of our universities to have an opportunity to contact students who may not even be aware of the offerings at other universities. Those universities that may have enrollment issues can approach students about their ability to transfer credits from one of our universities to another.

2. Create the infrastructure necessary, i.e., tuition collection and allocation, fee collection, transcript services, and necessary agreements with us to allow two or more faculty to create collaborative programs. Some of these agreements do exist, but having individual faculty and deans be concerned about back-end mechanics creates an unnecessary obstacle. Expanding collaborative programs is a student-centered approach that secures opportunities for students at all of our universities.

3. Create a gateway page that lists all distance-education programs and courses available at our universities and that allows students to register for a course, regardless of the university they attend or their matriculation status. This is the 21st century, and this is a 20th century request.

These requests are all student-centered and are meant to provide opportunities for our students. Frankly, we do not know how we could have gotten this far without action on these items.

As I noted, we will have several more proposals that we will share as we hope to expand upon the success of our System and our universities. We continue to assert that this System functions best when there are true opportunities to collaborate among all of our constituencies.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.