As the financial situation of most states declines with the loss of stimulus funds and fewer jobs returning, universities will have to make difficult decisions. The story pasted below shows one option being considered in Louisiana and reminds us why vigilance is important in our process of shared governance.
August 26, 2010
U. of Louisiana to Consider Weakening Tenure
By Paige ChapmanThe University of Louisiana system's Board of Supervisors plans to vote Friday on a proposal that would make it easier to dismiss tenured professors—a move that has upset faculty members throughout the system's eight campuses, as well as national faculty organizations.
"This could impact the quality of education offered in the classroom and the ability to recruit qualified people, including at both faculty and administration levels," said Jordan E. Kurland, associate general secretary for the American Association of University Professors.
System officials say the contemplated changes are driven by a tight budget. The proposals "are solely precipitated by a set of decreasing resources," said Randy Moffett, the system's president. "There are no other intentions." State financing for has been reduced by 17 percent since the 2008 fiscal year, and Mr. Moffett is anticipating another drop of approximately $95.3-million in the middle of 2011 when federal stimulus funds expire.
Still, some professors fear that three parts of the proposal could drastically reshape academic employment.
Under one of those, a "reduction" of a program could become a legitimate cause for terminating tenured faculty members. Currently, tenured positions can be cut only because of financial exigency or the complete discontinuance of a program.
Mr. Moffett said the proposed new language was added to include special circumstances left out in the currrent policy, such as the restructuring or scaling back of specific academic programs.
Lisa Abney, provost at one of the system's campuses, Northwestern State University, said such a change would provide more flexibility so the university wouldn't have to eliminate entire programs in response to budget cuts. Her institution has undergone an extensive restructuring to deal with financial constraints—including the merging of three departments and the elimination of seven different majors. Six tenured faculty members were laid off as a result.
But the language worries professors. A tenured professor at a system campus, who did not want to be named for fear of being targeted for a job cut, said the main concern is that the word "reduction" is vague. The professor said that it could be interpreted arbitrarily, especially in universities with tense faculty-administrative relations.
The professor said the proposal has already created a "poisonous atmosphere" at his institution because many colleagues are afraid to speak in opposition, fearing they could be fired if the measure is passed.
Mr. Kurland, of the AAUP, echoed faculty members' concerns about the possibility of arbitrary dismissals under the proposal. "It can be used as a device for the university to remove a person they don't want by simply removing what that person is teaching," he said. "They no longer have to show someone is no longer competent to do the work in that position."
Another proposed change that alarms professors is that tenured faculty members could be given much-shorter notice of job terminations—a minimum of only three months in the cases of program discontinuance or reduction.
Mr. Moffett said the change was proposed because the board is often unaware of what the state has determined for its budget until late June or early July. Some administrators said the change would allow them to delay personnel decisions and would prevent them from unnecessarily terminating positions that they may later discover they are able to finance.
Bette H. Maroney, president of Northwestern State's Faculty Senate, found out her position had been eliminated this year. Because she has a year to finish her term and look for a new position, she calls herself "one of the lucky ones." If the measure is passed, she said, professors who are laid off in the future, with little warning, may be adversely affected by the limited time of the hiring cycle in higher education.
The third area of concern is that appeals about tenure and employment decisions would no longer be considered by the system board, but would instead be handled internally by the individual university. Professors said removal of the additional layer could put them at the mercy of a hostile local administration.
The board will need nine votes to approve the measure. It is possible that it may not vote yes or no at its meeting in Baton Rouge on Friday, but instead vote to postpone a decision on the measure. If so, the next time the matter would be up for discussion is at its October 22 meeting.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Welcome to Our New President
Thomas Ross, President of Davidson College, will become the new President of the UNC system on January 1, 2011. He was elected today without opposition by the Board of Governors.
He spoke eloquently of the life of the mind and its value to individuals and to our culture. He believes in the transformative power of eduction. And he understands that education is the future of North Carolina.
I was also excited to hear that he stands ready to work with the Faculty Assembly cooperatively. We stand ready to engage with him.
He spoke eloquently of the life of the mind and its value to individuals and to our culture. He believes in the transformative power of eduction. And he understands that education is the future of North Carolina.
I was also excited to hear that he stands ready to work with the Faculty Assembly cooperatively. We stand ready to engage with him.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
This Week in The Chronicle
This week's piece on higher education and time for a reset from the Chronicle for Higher Education is timely. So much of what Finney advocates, the UNC system does already. Our tuition policy is but one example. But we are revisiting it now and thinking about how to meet the budgetary challenges ahead.
The Faculty Assembly is gearing up for an active year. Updates here will be regular and I urge all faculty in the system to stay up to date and active on their campuses. We will all have to be working at answers.
A Reset for Higher Education
By Joni E. Finney
Many of us have seen trouble coming for a long, long, time. Did we really believe that endowment growth, state support, and tuition dollars could or would provide an unchecked revenue stream, tempered only by short downturns in the economy, followed by fairly quick recoveries? Did we really believe that we could expand administrative structures and shortchange instruction, but still maintain quality institutions? Did we think that poor completion rates and the achievement gaps between whites and minority groups could be solved only with more money? Did we honestly believe that expensive amenities and increased financial aid for upper-middle-class and wealthy students could be sustained? Of course not.
To understand what needs to be done now—a “reset” in higher education—we need to first understand the changes pressuring our enterprise: deficits, demographics, and demand. States' structural deficits, or the gap that occurs when states fail to tax new types of economic activity, have been documented for years. A previously good economy permitted states to postpone those problems, but now, state leaders must revise their tax structures to generate more revenue. The most optimistic economic projections say the recession may end in 2013. Even then, states will be hard-pressed to return to the status quo in terms of appropriations.
IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: Charts and Graphics on Finance
BROWSE THE ALMANAC: More Statistics and State-by-State Profiles
Many in higher education lament states’ “disinvestment.” The problem is much more complex. States have been reliable partners in financing higher education. While enrollments grew, state support also grew, by 24 percent from 2005 to 2008, followed by a decline of 1.7 percent from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, the federal government spent $6.6-billion in 2009-10 under the stimulus bill for states, an amount that increases to $23-billion once federal student financial assistance (Pell grants and Work-Study) is included.
The second “D” is demographics. Southern and Southwestern states are experiencing explosive growth. Nine states will account for 70 percent of the country’s population growth by 2025. Thirty-two states face declines in their young populations, leaving them vulnerable economically at a time when many well-educated baby boomers will retire. Educating working adults and young adults—many of whom are underserved by the current educational system—requires rethinking programs and services.
The “D” for demand acknowledges that postsecondary education is necessary for membership in the middle class. Current enrollment patterns show that demand for higher education is strong, even if students must secure private loans or work full time. But research also shows that many college-qualified young people and adults are not enrolling in college, because of tuition increases and lack of available courses.
So how does higher education reset in a way that deals constructively with the three D’s? First, we must acknowledge that public-revenue limitations are likely for the foreseeable future. Second, the discussion of higher-education finance focuses disproportionately on price rather than costs. The focus on price has led many to believe that financial aid is the primary solution to college affordability. But financial-aid increases over the last two decades have not come close to solving the problem. A discussion of college costs that recognizes revenue limitations while enhancing learning productivity is necessary if we are to reset higher-education finance.
Third, a higher-education reset should provide institutional incentives for student success and rethink state investment in research based on public priorities. Redirecting public subsidies to undergraduate instruction could contain costly “mission creep” and be an important step in resetting finance policy. The federal reset might limit the number of universities receiving research money and provide incentives for improved access to college and better completion rates.
States must also take more responsibility for tuition policy. A policy that simply fills the gap between what institutions want and what they receive from the states is counterproductive to public purposes. Tuition increases can and should be moderate, gradual, and predictable. But over the last 10 years, they have been excessively steep and have disproportionately hurt poor and middle-income families, even with financial aid.
An economic reset is an opportunity to reinforce valued democratic ideals. I hope that public policy and higher education’s leaders will reset to honor valued public purposes. The country’s future depends upon it.
Joni E. Finney is director of the Institute for Research in Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor of practice in its Graduate School of Education.
The Faculty Assembly is gearing up for an active year. Updates here will be regular and I urge all faculty in the system to stay up to date and active on their campuses. We will all have to be working at answers.
A Reset for Higher Education
By Joni E. Finney
Many of us have seen trouble coming for a long, long, time. Did we really believe that endowment growth, state support, and tuition dollars could or would provide an unchecked revenue stream, tempered only by short downturns in the economy, followed by fairly quick recoveries? Did we really believe that we could expand administrative structures and shortchange instruction, but still maintain quality institutions? Did we think that poor completion rates and the achievement gaps between whites and minority groups could be solved only with more money? Did we honestly believe that expensive amenities and increased financial aid for upper-middle-class and wealthy students could be sustained? Of course not.
To understand what needs to be done now—a “reset” in higher education—we need to first understand the changes pressuring our enterprise: deficits, demographics, and demand. States' structural deficits, or the gap that occurs when states fail to tax new types of economic activity, have been documented for years. A previously good economy permitted states to postpone those problems, but now, state leaders must revise their tax structures to generate more revenue. The most optimistic economic projections say the recession may end in 2013. Even then, states will be hard-pressed to return to the status quo in terms of appropriations.
IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: Charts and Graphics on Finance
BROWSE THE ALMANAC: More Statistics and State-by-State Profiles
Many in higher education lament states’ “disinvestment.” The problem is much more complex. States have been reliable partners in financing higher education. While enrollments grew, state support also grew, by 24 percent from 2005 to 2008, followed by a decline of 1.7 percent from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, the federal government spent $6.6-billion in 2009-10 under the stimulus bill for states, an amount that increases to $23-billion once federal student financial assistance (Pell grants and Work-Study) is included.
The second “D” is demographics. Southern and Southwestern states are experiencing explosive growth. Nine states will account for 70 percent of the country’s population growth by 2025. Thirty-two states face declines in their young populations, leaving them vulnerable economically at a time when many well-educated baby boomers will retire. Educating working adults and young adults—many of whom are underserved by the current educational system—requires rethinking programs and services.
The “D” for demand acknowledges that postsecondary education is necessary for membership in the middle class. Current enrollment patterns show that demand for higher education is strong, even if students must secure private loans or work full time. But research also shows that many college-qualified young people and adults are not enrolling in college, because of tuition increases and lack of available courses.
So how does higher education reset in a way that deals constructively with the three D’s? First, we must acknowledge that public-revenue limitations are likely for the foreseeable future. Second, the discussion of higher-education finance focuses disproportionately on price rather than costs. The focus on price has led many to believe that financial aid is the primary solution to college affordability. But financial-aid increases over the last two decades have not come close to solving the problem. A discussion of college costs that recognizes revenue limitations while enhancing learning productivity is necessary if we are to reset higher-education finance.
Third, a higher-education reset should provide institutional incentives for student success and rethink state investment in research based on public priorities. Redirecting public subsidies to undergraduate instruction could contain costly “mission creep” and be an important step in resetting finance policy. The federal reset might limit the number of universities receiving research money and provide incentives for improved access to college and better completion rates.
States must also take more responsibility for tuition policy. A policy that simply fills the gap between what institutions want and what they receive from the states is counterproductive to public purposes. Tuition increases can and should be moderate, gradual, and predictable. But over the last 10 years, they have been excessively steep and have disproportionately hurt poor and middle-income families, even with financial aid.
An economic reset is an opportunity to reinforce valued democratic ideals. I hope that public policy and higher education’s leaders will reset to honor valued public purposes. The country’s future depends upon it.
Joni E. Finney is director of the Institute for Research in Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor of practice in its Graduate School of Education.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Work Ahead
July is drawing to a close and already the challenges of fall loom large. With the new legislative session convening in January, planning for the year ahead already is well underway.
Now, more than ever, faculty creativity must come to the forefront.
States like North Carolina face extraordinary budget short falls. Jobs are not coming back to the economy. Housing is not recovering as hoped. And businesses are still quite limited in their ability to start or expand.
This year, the universities with the help of the General Assembly shifted some additional burden to families in the form of tuition increases. But what now?
Those of us in the university system cannot simply think about how to protect our own. We must look comprehensively at the needs of the state and help our representatitves find solutions to the myriad of issues. And we have the expertise to engage in this process on our campuses in our faculties.
That thinking should be happening now.
But we also must remember our rights as citizens as November elections are upon us. Asking all of our candidates about their positions and their priorities, about their plans and solutions is imperative. We have to elect people who can put forward practical programs to meet our needs and make sure the leadership listens.
The time will not come again and our options will be limited if we drag our feet or refuse to assume some responsibility.
Now, more than ever, faculty creativity must come to the forefront.
States like North Carolina face extraordinary budget short falls. Jobs are not coming back to the economy. Housing is not recovering as hoped. And businesses are still quite limited in their ability to start or expand.
This year, the universities with the help of the General Assembly shifted some additional burden to families in the form of tuition increases. But what now?
Those of us in the university system cannot simply think about how to protect our own. We must look comprehensively at the needs of the state and help our representatitves find solutions to the myriad of issues. And we have the expertise to engage in this process on our campuses in our faculties.
That thinking should be happening now.
But we also must remember our rights as citizens as November elections are upon us. Asking all of our candidates about their positions and their priorities, about their plans and solutions is imperative. We have to elect people who can put forward practical programs to meet our needs and make sure the leadership listens.
The time will not come again and our options will be limited if we drag our feet or refuse to assume some responsibility.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A Great Piece on Faculty Governance as a Responsibility
From today's Chronicle, something we all should read:
Serving the University: Better Mentors for Young Professors Would Help
Mark Shaver for The Chronicle
Enlarge Image Mark Shaver for The Chronicle
By Kenneth J. Sufka
I am coming to the end of my second term as chair of the Faculty Senate at the University of Mississippi after having served as a senator several times over my 17-year career. I have gained much in personal growth and in understanding the complexity of university operations. While teaching and scholarship certainly occupy the most important aspects of our professional lives, a university's operations cannot function without faculty involvement. Faculty participation in decision making in our senate and on university standing committees allows our teaching and research careers to grow and prosper in many ways.
But few professors understand the role of faculty senates, the responsibilities of university standing committees, and matters of faculty governance in making policies in a university setting. Some faculty members assume the senate at my institution is the body to handle grievances or that it sets university policy. Neither is the case at the University of Mississippi, although one or both could be at other universities. And when it comes to serving on standing committees, I have discovered that some faculty members are unclear of the committees' responsibilities and of the constituents whom they serve.
In fact, while colleges have long focused on scholarship, and they are beginning to emphasize better teaching, the third responsibility of faculty members—service—does not seem to receive similar attention. I have found that few senior faculty members are willing to commit to departmental service and, as such, pass this task off to their untenured colleagues. The same seems to be true when the senate is tasked to fill appointments to university standing committees. On my campus—and from what I've heard, on many others—we have a clear need for a more thoughtful approach to mentoring junior professors and for more encouragement of senior faculty members to serve their university in such an important form of faculty governance.
Department chairs should not protect junior faculty members from such obligations. Rather, they should organize orientation programs for junior professors that include sessions explicitly detailing how faculty governance is carried out through faculty senates and standing committees in their particular institutions. Nor should such mentoring end there. Standing-committee chairs also have the responsibility to offer some kind of orientation so that new committee members clearly understand the function of the committee and the role of each member on it. I recently encountered a situation in which six of 10 professors on a university committee voted down a policy recommendation that was endorsed by more than 80 percent of the faculty members they represent.
One major problem I confronted last year was that junior faculty members are far too inexperienced to contribute to the more challenging matters placed before the Faculty Senate by the administration. For example, most colleges in this country are experiencing serious fiscal crises, and at my university, the chancellor asked our senate to develop a faculty-endorsed framework to help the administration meet major objectives in aligning strategic plans with current revenue streams and anticipated shortfalls. Few untenured faculty members, however, have any real grasp of university budgets—and, in fact, the same could probably be said for many senior professors.
How many professors can answer questions like: What percentage of revenue is provided by the state, generated by tuition and fees, and provided by grants and contracts? What percentage of revenue goes to various expenditure categories? The senate should take certain actions to educate itself and other faculty members on such matters. At the University of Mississippi, members of the Faculty Senate now receive an annual "State of the University" address by the provost, including considerable data from the chief financial officer and other financial administrators on campus.
Most of all, I have found it helpful to have members on the senate who have some institutional memory—and thus are familiar with university missions, strategic plans, and the like. But it seems that far too few veteran faculty members are willing to take on such service to the university. Department chairs need to encourage, perhaps even arm-twist, their very best faculty members to be an integral part of such faculty governance. Once senior faculty members become involved and knowledgeable, they can in turn encourage junior faculty members and help train and guide them on governance issues.
The benefits of that approach can be significant for the individual as well as the institution: I have found that serving a university in these roles acts as a training ground of sorts for the development of many of the skills required to be an effective future leader within a university's structure. Those include communications skills and the ability to see how everything connects with everything else and the long-term impact of decisions. Indeed, department chairs, college and school deans, and vice presidents who made a commitment in their early careers to support the university in such ways have found the experience has helped them a great deal in their current positions.
We need more veteran professors to come forward today in a similar way. Effective mentoring of junior professors as they become increasingly involved in university service ensures a high-quality pool of candidates who may one day be called upon to serve their universities in leadership roles.
Kenneth J. Sufka is a professor of psychology and pharmacology at the University of Mississippi.
Serving the University: Better Mentors for Young Professors Would Help
Mark Shaver for The Chronicle
Enlarge Image Mark Shaver for The Chronicle
By Kenneth J. Sufka
I am coming to the end of my second term as chair of the Faculty Senate at the University of Mississippi after having served as a senator several times over my 17-year career. I have gained much in personal growth and in understanding the complexity of university operations. While teaching and scholarship certainly occupy the most important aspects of our professional lives, a university's operations cannot function without faculty involvement. Faculty participation in decision making in our senate and on university standing committees allows our teaching and research careers to grow and prosper in many ways.
But few professors understand the role of faculty senates, the responsibilities of university standing committees, and matters of faculty governance in making policies in a university setting. Some faculty members assume the senate at my institution is the body to handle grievances or that it sets university policy. Neither is the case at the University of Mississippi, although one or both could be at other universities. And when it comes to serving on standing committees, I have discovered that some faculty members are unclear of the committees' responsibilities and of the constituents whom they serve.
In fact, while colleges have long focused on scholarship, and they are beginning to emphasize better teaching, the third responsibility of faculty members—service—does not seem to receive similar attention. I have found that few senior faculty members are willing to commit to departmental service and, as such, pass this task off to their untenured colleagues. The same seems to be true when the senate is tasked to fill appointments to university standing committees. On my campus—and from what I've heard, on many others—we have a clear need for a more thoughtful approach to mentoring junior professors and for more encouragement of senior faculty members to serve their university in such an important form of faculty governance.
Department chairs should not protect junior faculty members from such obligations. Rather, they should organize orientation programs for junior professors that include sessions explicitly detailing how faculty governance is carried out through faculty senates and standing committees in their particular institutions. Nor should such mentoring end there. Standing-committee chairs also have the responsibility to offer some kind of orientation so that new committee members clearly understand the function of the committee and the role of each member on it. I recently encountered a situation in which six of 10 professors on a university committee voted down a policy recommendation that was endorsed by more than 80 percent of the faculty members they represent.
One major problem I confronted last year was that junior faculty members are far too inexperienced to contribute to the more challenging matters placed before the Faculty Senate by the administration. For example, most colleges in this country are experiencing serious fiscal crises, and at my university, the chancellor asked our senate to develop a faculty-endorsed framework to help the administration meet major objectives in aligning strategic plans with current revenue streams and anticipated shortfalls. Few untenured faculty members, however, have any real grasp of university budgets—and, in fact, the same could probably be said for many senior professors.
How many professors can answer questions like: What percentage of revenue is provided by the state, generated by tuition and fees, and provided by grants and contracts? What percentage of revenue goes to various expenditure categories? The senate should take certain actions to educate itself and other faculty members on such matters. At the University of Mississippi, members of the Faculty Senate now receive an annual "State of the University" address by the provost, including considerable data from the chief financial officer and other financial administrators on campus.
Most of all, I have found it helpful to have members on the senate who have some institutional memory—and thus are familiar with university missions, strategic plans, and the like. But it seems that far too few veteran faculty members are willing to take on such service to the university. Department chairs need to encourage, perhaps even arm-twist, their very best faculty members to be an integral part of such faculty governance. Once senior faculty members become involved and knowledgeable, they can in turn encourage junior faculty members and help train and guide them on governance issues.
The benefits of that approach can be significant for the individual as well as the institution: I have found that serving a university in these roles acts as a training ground of sorts for the development of many of the skills required to be an effective future leader within a university's structure. Those include communications skills and the ability to see how everything connects with everything else and the long-term impact of decisions. Indeed, department chairs, college and school deans, and vice presidents who made a commitment in their early careers to support the university in such ways have found the experience has helped them a great deal in their current positions.
We need more veteran professors to come forward today in a similar way. Effective mentoring of junior professors as they become increasingly involved in university service ensures a high-quality pool of candidates who may one day be called upon to serve their universities in leadership roles.
Kenneth J. Sufka is a professor of psychology and pharmacology at the University of Mississippi.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
More Trouble Looming
Much is happening in higher education....the budget is passed, tuition increases are going through, furlough guidelines are being discussed. But the scary part is what is yet to come.
Check out this piece from today's Chronicle.
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Colleges-in-Some-States/66274/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
We know in NC that there is already a $3billion hole next year. We also know that jobs are not bouncing back and that housing is not stabalizing. Thinking about how to operate for another 5-10 years in this budget scenario is not unrealistic.
Check out this piece from today's Chronicle.
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Colleges-in-Some-States/66274/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
We know in NC that there is already a $3billion hole next year. We also know that jobs are not bouncing back and that housing is not stabalizing. Thinking about how to operate for another 5-10 years in this budget scenario is not unrealistic.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Do We Have Spare Cash?
You might be interested to read the piece from The N&O today where state teachers accuse our system of having money to spare.
It is an interesting question to ponder......and one each of us should be prepared to go to our Chancellors and ask. The budgets are public -- technically. But we all know how money gets shoveled around between categories and becomes harder to trace out. We also all know how the cuts have had an effect in our classrooms.
Politics and the need for money plays a large part in these charges. But we also should be held accountable for our use of public money (K-12 and University).
Masthead
Published Thu, Jun 17, 2010 05:45 AM
Modified Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:02 AM
Vying for funds, educators defend their claims
Behind-the-scenes criticism of UNC-system spending burst into the open this week, with the president of the state teachers organization telling UNC President Erskine Bowles that universities had money to spare before they started cutting faculty.
The university is protecting its "questionable spending," said Sheri Strickland, president of the N.C. Association of Educators, while teachers in local public schools are losing their jobs.
The public criticism of spending for the state universities comes as legislative budget writers work out how to allocate an additional $75 million between the universities and public schools - money pulled from the proposed budgets of other state agencies to beef up education spending.
In the past year, tight budgets have heightened the competition between the teachers group and the state university system, with the NCAE claiming that Senate leaders protect the universities. NCAE stepped up its criticism of university spending this year, referring repeatedly to the $9 million in tuition breaks that legislators give UNC athletes and to a consultant's report that UNC-Chapel Hill has too many administrators.
Bowles defends system
In an e-mail message, Bowles said the system has already cut 930 jobs, including 900 administrative positions. A strong case has been made that the system went too far with administrative cuts, Bowles wrote, "but that's what we felt we must do to protect our academic core."
But the NCAE sent its members another news article about UNC salaries this week. Bowles is not firing back.
Through spokeswoman Joni Worthington, Bowles said, "I have no qualms whatsoever with K-12 fighting as hard as they can for every dollar they need to educate their students. In fact, I'm glad they are. It's important that the K-12 system be properly funded."
Advocates for local schools have been more visible overall this year, with the NCAE joining forces with the state Department of Public Instruction and school board and school administrators to highlight the consequences of budget cuts on K-12 public schools. The latest was this week, when superintendents from across the state talked of budget cuts leading to more children in classrooms and fewer foreign language and advanced courses.
Strickland said she sent Bowles a letter to respond to his comments last week that the House version of the budget would force faculty out of jobs and deny financial aid to poor students. The university system has money it can redirect, she said, including salaries from administrative jobs.
Budget writers said the additional $75 million they have to spend on education will help them get close to meeting the requirements of K-12 public schools and the university system.
lynn.bonner@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4821
It is an interesting question to ponder......and one each of us should be prepared to go to our Chancellors and ask. The budgets are public -- technically. But we all know how money gets shoveled around between categories and becomes harder to trace out. We also all know how the cuts have had an effect in our classrooms.
Politics and the need for money plays a large part in these charges. But we also should be held accountable for our use of public money (K-12 and University).
Masthead
Published Thu, Jun 17, 2010 05:45 AM
Modified Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:02 AM
Vying for funds, educators defend their claims
Behind-the-scenes criticism of UNC-system spending burst into the open this week, with the president of the state teachers organization telling UNC President Erskine Bowles that universities had money to spare before they started cutting faculty.
The university is protecting its "questionable spending," said Sheri Strickland, president of the N.C. Association of Educators, while teachers in local public schools are losing their jobs.
The public criticism of spending for the state universities comes as legislative budget writers work out how to allocate an additional $75 million between the universities and public schools - money pulled from the proposed budgets of other state agencies to beef up education spending.
In the past year, tight budgets have heightened the competition between the teachers group and the state university system, with the NCAE claiming that Senate leaders protect the universities. NCAE stepped up its criticism of university spending this year, referring repeatedly to the $9 million in tuition breaks that legislators give UNC athletes and to a consultant's report that UNC-Chapel Hill has too many administrators.
Bowles defends system
In an e-mail message, Bowles said the system has already cut 930 jobs, including 900 administrative positions. A strong case has been made that the system went too far with administrative cuts, Bowles wrote, "but that's what we felt we must do to protect our academic core."
But the NCAE sent its members another news article about UNC salaries this week. Bowles is not firing back.
Through spokeswoman Joni Worthington, Bowles said, "I have no qualms whatsoever with K-12 fighting as hard as they can for every dollar they need to educate their students. In fact, I'm glad they are. It's important that the K-12 system be properly funded."
Advocates for local schools have been more visible overall this year, with the NCAE joining forces with the state Department of Public Instruction and school board and school administrators to highlight the consequences of budget cuts on K-12 public schools. The latest was this week, when superintendents from across the state talked of budget cuts leading to more children in classrooms and fewer foreign language and advanced courses.
Strickland said she sent Bowles a letter to respond to his comments last week that the House version of the budget would force faculty out of jobs and deny financial aid to poor students. The university system has money it can redirect, she said, including salaries from administrative jobs.
Budget writers said the additional $75 million they have to spend on education will help them get close to meeting the requirements of K-12 public schools and the university system.
lynn.bonner@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4821
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)