The University of Kansas

KU hopes to narrow peer funding gap

Provost: A fully funded education system is vital to the state’s economy

By Provost David Shulenburger

Throughout the state’s history, Kansans have favored a strong education system. Countless surveys confirm that elementary, secondary and postsecondary education remains a top priority. Not only do we want to prepare our young people to be successful, contributing adults, but we also recognize the critical role of education in the state’s economy and quality of life.

Compared with other states — even those that connect with our borders — higher education in Kansas has long been a bargain. The University of Kansas’ resident undergraduate tuition and fees are $2,884, which is $2,000 below Missouri’s, almost $900 below Nebraska’s and more than $600 below Iowa’s. Iowa has approved an increase of $668 for fall 2002.

Although education is a top priority of Kansans, state appropriations per student at regents schools have declined dramatically in the past 15 years. Between 1985 and 2000, inflation-adjusted state funding for KU dropped from $6,469 to $5,802 per student. If we were funded in FY 2000 at the same rate as FY 1985, we would have $15 million more in state appropriations.

We have stretched state dollars by streamlining operations, implementing conservation measures and vigorously pursuing private gifts and federal funding. We have made a little go a long way in protecting the high quality of educational programs and preserving the value of a KU degree. But we are falling behind.

Compared with our five peer schools (Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Oregon) — with which we share similar demographics and other attributes — our overall funding has declined to 80 cents on the dollar. For every dollar they spend for operating expenses, we have 60 cents. For every dollar they spend for faculty salaries, we have only 90 cents. If we are to compete with our peers and keep our educational programs strong, we must do better.

The funding gap is growing and threatens to erode the quality and value of a degree from a Kansas university. The Kansas Board of Regents believes it is time to consider raising tuition to address the gap. The regents have asked the six state universities to develop a five-year tuition strategy.

Before a specific recommendation is presented to the regents, each university will hold conversations with its campus community — students, faculty and staff — to gather opinions about a strategy that makes the most sense.

KU has begun that campus dialogue. We put together various possible scenarios to demonstrate how a five-year tuition strategy might be implemented. These scenarios are meant to stimulate discussion and elicit feedback from our campus community, which will be used to formulate an actual proposal to take to the regents in April. Each scenario includes two alternatives: one that would place the bulk of the tuition increase on new students in fall 2002 and fall 2003, and one that spreads the increase evenly across all students beginning in fall 2002 and continuing through fall 2005.

These are the scenarios that have been discussed so far:

In scenario A, tuition for new students would be $4,324 in fall 2002 and $5,764 in fall 2003; in the alternative for this scenario, tuition for all students would be $3,604 in fall 2002 and $4,324 in fall 2003.

In scenario B, tuition for new students would be $4,024 in fall 2002 and $5,164 in fall 2003; alternatively, tuition for all students would be $3,454 in fall 2002 and $4,024 in Fall 2003. In scenario C, tuition for new students would be $3,604 for fall 2002 and $4,324 in fall 2003; alternatively, tuition for all students would be $3,244 in fall 2002 and $3,604 in fall 2003.

Of the three scenarios, when fully implemented scenario A would result in $2,880 more for tuition; scenario B would mean an increase of $2,280; and scenario C would result in $1,440 more. That means, for example, if the increase were applied to all students rather than just new students, tuition would increase by $720 per year over the next four years in scenario A, $570 per year for scenario B and $360 per year for scenario C.

The size of our funding deficit compared with similar institutions is $50 million per year. The scenarios described above would address this deficit in differing degrees. Scenario A, when fully implemented, would erase the $50 million deficit completely. Scenario B would raise $40 million and would eliminate the deficit in nonfaculty personnel and funding for operating expenses; scenario C would eliminate half the deficit that currently exists.

All the scenarios include an $8 per credit hour technology fee to ensure that KU can replace broken and outdated technological equipment, a component critical to a modern education. The three scenarios we have presented for discussion exclude adjustments for inflation and maintenance. Tuition and fees represent about one-fourth of the total cost of attending KU; room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other miscellaneous expenses make up the remainder.

We are deeply committed to maintaining access to KU; therefore, any proposal that we ultimately choose to present to the regents will include 20 percent for need-based financial aid. Scenario A includes $10 million for financial aid over four years, scenario B includes $8 million and scenario C includes $5 million. This funding would be awarded as grants rather than loans. Our inclusion of the financial aid provision in all scenarios has been applauded by students who have attended tuition strategy presentations.

The Lawrence campus discussions have yielded probing questions, carefully articulated concerns and thoughtful suggestions, all of which will play a role in shaping the five-year tuition strategy for KU. The editorial board of our student newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, has said, “Although the administration has yet to decide upon a specific proposal, higher tuition is a necessity if the University of Kansas wants to continue providing first-rate higher education.”

It would be irresponsible for the higher education system in Kansas to not seek alternative sources of revenue as state funding drops. The potential consequences are far too grim. If the present trends continue, graduates of Kansas institutions will be less competitive and could have less earning power than those obtaining degrees from more adequately funded universities. It takes a well-educated, well-prepared workforce to draw business and industry to Kansas and bolster the state’s economy.

If our funding levels cannot be brought more into line with our peers, the cost to our students will be far greater and longer-lasting than any additional tuition they will be asked to invest in their education.