Luann McVey holds a sign before the start of a rally held in support of the Alaska university system … [+]
There’s simply no better personal investment than a college degree from a public or genuinely non-profit college.
And considering what it costs up front, there’s no better value in that investment than going to a state, publicly-funded college or university. Public schools tend to cost less and be more accessible than their private, non-profit sistren. That’s largely because state schools are heavily subsidized by state taxpayers and, to a lesser extent, federal tax policy and grant-making.
It is no secret that following the 2008 recession, states slashed funding to their colleges and universities and simultaneously shifted a larger share of the cost to students. But according to the annual Grapevine survey, a joint project out of Illinois State University and the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, state legislatures are starting to make that up. This year, funds approved for higher education represented “a 5.0% increase nationwide,” which was the, “highest annual increase” since 2014. The report says only three states reduced their year to year college funding – Alaska, Hawaii and New York.
That sounds great. But it’s not nearly time to pat state legislators on their backs. Many of them, most of them are still dramatically shortchanging higher education. And that’s where the data story gets fun – if you’re into this kind of thing.
The Grapevine data breaks higher education funding down by per capita expenditures. For reference, the state that is set to spend the most per resident on its college system for 2020 is, believe it or not, Wyoming, which proposes to invest $673 per capita in 2020. The cheapest state is New Hampshire, at just $103 a head.
When you look at per capita college spending from 2015 through 2020, you can see which states are ramping up their investments and which are not. The top five per capita increases over the last six years are Hawaii – spending more than $131 per resident more than they were five years ago – then California ($108 more), Utah ($80), Tennessee ($68) and Washington ($64). The state that has cut the most per capita college funding according to Grapevine is Alaska, which has chopped more than $116 for every resident since 2015. That’s followed by North Dakota ($57 cut per resident), Oklahoma ($54), Mississippi ($16) and Kentucky ($8).
Another way to look at per capita investments over that time is as percentage of the initial investment because, for example, a boost of $80 in Utah may mean a whole lot more than $108 in California. On that score, the states with the higher per capita increase percentage are Oregon, California, Hawaii, Colorado and Nevada – all five booked per capita spending increases of at least 30% over 2015. The bottom five: Alaska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Mississippi and Kentucky, all of which made cuts per capita.
But an even more interesting calculation offered up by Grapevine is state funding for higher education based on earned income of the residents. Just as per capita funding evens out the big states and the smaller ones, earned income analysis evens out the rich and less rich ones.
The state that spends the most compared to the income of its residents is, again, Wyoming. It spends $10.69 for every $1,000 earned. Only one other state cracks the $10 per thousand line – New Mexico. The cheapest state when compared to the income of its residents is New Hampshire again, coughing up a measly $1.62 for colleges for every $1,000 earned by residents.
Since 2015, according to Grapevine, based on every $1,000 earned by state residents, the state that has put the most into its higher education system is, again, Hawaii. Even then, the Aloha State boosted college funding just 77 cents since 2015 for every $1,000 its residents earned. The others in the top five are Tennessee (increase of 43 cents), Oregon (31), Nevada (28) and Colorado (26).
On the flip side, the state that cut the most from its colleges based on the income of its residents is, again, Alaska, which for every $1,000 a resident earns, has cut state support by $2.88. Reminder, the best state based on resident income was Hawaii at plus 77 cents, Alaska cut funding by $2.88. The other bottom four are New Mexico (cut $1.70 per $1,000 earned), Mississippi again ($1.54), Oklahoma again ($1.44) and, again, Kentucky ($1.22).
Perhaps most insightful of all the data in the report is looking at college funding per $1,000 earned as a percentage of initial investment, seeing if the state is keeping pace with the income of its residents. The five states that have actually increased funding the most based on the income gains of residents are Colorado (up 9%), Hawaii, Oregon, Tennessee and Nevada. The states that have cut the most in this category are Alaska, Oklahoma, Arizona, Kentucky and Wisconsin.
It’s a fascinating way to look at education funding. In case of Arizona for example, their higher education funding is up more than $50 million since 2015. But compared to the money Arizona residents have made in that time, the state’s commitment to its colleges is down. Same story in Wisconsin and others.
There are many ways to slice the numbers but it’s clear that a few states are doing quite well at investing in their futures by funding state colleges and universities. Oregon, Tennessee, Nevada, Hawaii, Colorado and California all get gold stars. Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota and Oklahoma are clearly failing.
But to show how misleading numbers can be, Alaska, which leads the pack in nearly every downward trajectory in the Grapevine survey data, still spends the fifth most per capita on higher education. Alaska proposes to spend more per resident in 2020 than California. Nonetheless, it’s clear that California is investing. Alaska is retreating.
The headline, conveniently placed here in the penultimate paragraph, is that on higher education investment, most states have failed to take advantage of the economy that’s been growing steadily for a decade. Most states are not even maintaining consistent funding levels relative to the income collected by their residents – in the prosperous economy of the past six plus years, a shocking 37 of the 50 states have cut higher education funding as a share of their residents’ incomes.
So, while the headline may be that state funding is up, and it is, it’s likely we will look back at this era as a gigantic missed opportunity to not just fill the hole created by the 2008/10 recession but race ahead.
