Most Recent Comments

1) Sen. Goschka's "fourth journal statement" [by Admin003 on June 17, 2005]
Senator Goschka's fourth statement is as follows:

What we have before us is a bill that establishes floor funding at $3,750 per student. Regardless of where you go to a university in this state, it would seem appropriate that a student would be able to count on from the state a minimum amount of dollars toward their education. Right now, Grand Valley is at $3,072. The highest-funded school currently is Wayne State University at $9,665; clearly a disparity.

This bill does not call for parity of all schools. It recognizes the different missions that schools have. Some have medical schools, some have law schools, some are in engineering and the health field, and so many other areas. We recognize those differences.

Another important part of this bill is it restores most of the Michigan tuition grant dollars, but we know that they will be left whole for next year as Senate Fiscal has shared in terms of the numbers to give them the opportunity to still give $2,000 scholarships to students who are eligible for that program. They are Michigan kids and it's need-based.

It fully restores the agricultural experiment station and the cooperative extension service--very vital in this state. I fully believe that part of the puzzle in turning our state around economically is to stand up for our universities. They are the economic hub, the economic engine in so many cases in their local areas and for our entire state.

This is a budget of which I am most proud, and I would urge adoption of Senate Bill No.273, the higher education bill.

Reply

2) Sen. Goschka's "third journal statement" [by Admin003 on June 17, 2005]
Senator Goschka's third statement is as follows:

I respectfully rise to oppose this amendment. Other than restoring Wayne and Northern to their amounts, it actually does reduce in this budget the amounts given to the other 13 universities. It literally destroys the floor funding model that has been constructed in this bill. It destroys the bill as it is written. I appreciate the intent, but it is lacking, and I would urge that we vote this amendment down.

Reply

3) Sen. Goschka's "second journal statement" [by Admin003 on June 17, 2005]
Senator Goschka's second statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to this amendment. Northern Michigan University is another university that we all can be proud of. It does a very good job and is a quality school in the state of Michigan; one that, with is peers, has stepped up to the plate and done a very good job. Again, this is not in any fashion to be punitive. The previous speaker did talk about, "We'll do this at another time when there is money available." What is the "We'll do this?" That is making things right as they should have been decades ago.

Northern, again, and in a moment, I will cite certain enrollment numbers. I could do the same with Wayne, but for time's sake, take note that it applies to both schools. At a time when Northern has been losing its enrollment, the state never lowered their funding. So, in effect, their funding per student continued to rise. Take note that in 1977, Northern had an enrollment of 8,055. A year later, they were down to 7,804. In 1984, they were down to 6,704; a year later, down to 6,411; by 1986, 6,207. Take note again they were at 8,055. And now, in just nine years, they are down to 6,207. They've lost about 1,800 students by then. Funding continued to either go up markedly or in slight amounts. The previous speaker is not wrong when he cites percentages, but percentages can tell a certain story depending on what we want it to say.

The bottom line is what are the enrollment numbers; what is the funding per student? That is what we have to concern ourselves with today. By 1996, they were at 6,243.

So the issue here is that over a period of time when the enrollment had gone down, funding hadn't gone up for this school, so it inherently increased their funding per student. In fact, if this bill were to be adopted into law, as it is currently written with the 10 percent decrease to Northern Michigan University, to adopt the floor that we've put into this bill for floor funding to give Grand Valley, for instance, their 22.3 percent increase. Again, they are funded right now at $3,072 per student. Their peer school Northern receives $5,415 per student. It is way overdue to correct this wrong.

In fact, Central Michigan University, which is a peer school with Northern, if we were to bring them into the same very funding per student under this plan, we would have given Northern a 20.6 percent reduction--20.6 percent. They are still $1,113 per student ahead of Central in this plan. They are $1,106 still--if this plan goes into effect--ahead of Eastern per student; $512 more per student than Western; $985 per student more than Eastern. I will tell you that there are universities all across this state that would love to take the situation as it is and trade places with Northern, at a drop of the hat. So we did exercise restraint, frankly, in limiting it to a 10 percent cut. But even if this goes into effect, take note that with all of its peer schools, Northern is still a $1,000-plus ahead of any other school, other than Western and Eastern, again, at $985, but they're more than $1,000 ahead per student even if this plan goes into effect.

With that, I respectfully ask this body to reject this amendment.

Reply

View Full Conversation