Skip to main content

Thinking about the Delaware budget and higher education

[Sub-title: Dana, this one's for you]

This afternoon my employer, Delaware State University, makes its pitch at the Joint Finance Committee. I don't usually blog about DSU because of potential conflicts of interest and my position as faculty union president.

But sometimes you just have to go with what you believe.

I suspect (I have absolutely no inside information on this) that DSU will put on a presentation that attempts to justify the same level of funding as originally projected, in an effort to avoid anything more draconian than a 3% cut. I suspect that many other agencies will do so as well.

It's no secret that DSU--like a lot of American citizens these days--is walking a tight financial line. I could give details, but that might get me into confidential information--just go read the newspapers and public documents if you are really interested in the numbers.

I have to say, however, that going in today and suggesting that higher education cannot take cuts at least as deep, if not deeper than public education in this State is a dire mistake.

DSU, UD, and Del Tech all possess an ability that the public schools do not have: they can gin up money from other sources: grants, tuition, fees, donations, etc. etc. So point one is that colleges and universities have a better ability to compensate for such cuts than public education--and they need to acknowledge that fact publicly.

Point two: the cost of higher education has been skyrocketing for the past two decades, way out ahead of inflation. I'm not sure why: for the last two decades I have only seen departmental instructional budgets go down, and teaching lines eliminated as the number of administrators go up while more and more millions are spent on sports and branding. Wait, maybe I do know why the costs are increasing....

Colleges and universities in this State need to present evidence of some serious cost control measures before claiming some sort of exemption from the same budget cuts faced by my children's schools. With respect to my own institution, a more cynical observer than me might ask why a university with with about 180 faculty and 3,500 students requires a Provost, two Associate Provosts, six Vice-Presidents, and six deans--or one senior administrator for every 12 faculty and every 234 students.

Point three: without public education functioning, higher education is pretty damn meaningless.

Point four: school districts are now having serious conversations about whether or not they can afford inter-scholastic athletics while cutting services to special needs students. Good for them; it's the right discussion to have. Where is that discussion on the part of higher education in this State?

Point five: if banks and corporations receiving Federal funds are (rightly) to be subject to extreme transparency and even government regulation of salaries, why not State-supported higher ed? Delaware and Pennsylvania are--to my knowledge--the only two states in the damn country which basically exempt state university operations from most FOIA provisions. What the hell? And what about those bloated administrative salaries? Is the General Assembly going to ask Harker, Smith, or George to insure that the top 10 administrators at each institution take 5-10% pay cuts to do their part? [Kudos, by the way, to Harker for getting that ball rolling.]

I expect that if any of my colleagues reads this I will hear about it in a negative way. So be it.

But as recipients of State and Federal funds, colleges and universities in Delaware have an absolute responsibility to conduct their operations frugally, transparently, and in the spirit of insuring that all education in the State is adequately funded.

PS--on a tangential note: dropping the DSTP tomorrow and replacing it with off the shelf assessments to replace our NCLB requirements would save $5 million instantly. And Jack promised he'd do that. Hope we see it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?