For those interested in the long term spending on higher education on an absolute and per student basis, the following report has plenty of data.
http://sheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/SHEF%20FY%202014-20150410.pdf
Re: http://sheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/SHEF%20FY%202014-20150410.pdf
Table 3 on page 20 shows the following in inflation-adjusted 2014 dollars:
1989 2004 2009 2013 2014 1989-2014 change
Appropriations / FTE 8615 7457 7553 6215 6552 -24.0%
Net Tuition / FTE 2792 4034 4560 5624 5777 +106.9%
Total Revenue / FTE 11407 11457 12065 11780 12266 +7.5%
Figure 8 on page 31 and table 5 on page 32 show that educational appropriations per FTE declined from 2009-2014 in all but three states. The three states were Alaska (+2.4%), North Dakota (+45.5%), and Illinois (+49.5%). But there were big reductions in Louisiana (-38.4%), Pennsylvania (-35.3%), Arizona (-33.2%), Colorado (-33.0%), New Hampshire (-32.3%), Idaho (-31.8%), Nevada (-27.5%), Missouri (-26.1%), Hawaii (-25.7%), and Ohio (-25.3%).
Illinois appropriations per FTE are up 45.5%, but per table 4, FTE enrollment is down 16.6% (2009=397,018 to 20014=326,329). I’m sure each state has it’s own story (North Dakota? Oil money boom).
Total state and local support for higher ed nationally was $37.5 billion in 1989, $66.6 billion in 2004; $83.6 billion in 2014 (in unadjusted dollars). Page 19, table 2.
Total state and local support for higher ed nationally was $77.4 billion in 1989, $84.2 billion in 2004; $83.6 billion in 2014 (in constant 2014 adjusted dollars). Page 20, table 3.
So the aggregate constant dollars going to support higher ed nationally have remained pretty constant. There aren’t big “cuts” in aggregate dollars nationally.
The big “cuts” are in per student (or FTE) support. Since the numerator (aggregate dollars) is flat, that means the “cuts” are due to growth in the denominator (i.e. enrollment headcount). The FTE numbers UCB cites above would be consistent with that math.
So I think the fairer and less misleading headline is “State support fails to grow as fast as rapidly expanding enrollments.” That trend (as noted above) has been going on for 150 years.
Ample FTE higher ed support is much less expensive to provide when the number of students is lower. That’s quite similar to the funding challenges faced by other entitlement programs (SS, medicaid, etc.) with a growing demographic of beneficiaries.
Regarding the increase in Illinois, the additional funds went to make up for past missed payments to the pension fund, not for current expenditures. There is a 2015 report out as well.
http://sheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/SHEEO_FY15_Report_051816.pdf
The site also lets one manipulate the data in different ways.
@northwesty, total state support for publics also hasn’t increased as fast as the economy (and tax base) has grown.
Sure. So PT’s headline could read:
“State support fails to grow as fast as the economy and rapidly expanding enrollments.”
But the headline shouldn’t be this. Since it is quite misleading:
“The driver of rising tuitions for public colleges has been declining state funding for higher education.”
@northwesty, but that’s also true. State support hasn’t kept up with the rate of increase in higher ed costs either (even if there had been no increase in population), which means higher tuition costs.
PT – I think we agree.
State college tuition has increased because overall support in aggregate dollars has been only maintained. It has not been decreased or increased (as measured nation-wide).
But the cost of running state universities has gone way up for a variety of reasons, including enrollment increases.
The “cuts” or “reductions” that are cited by this author and others in most places is a failure to continue to increase support. Just sayin.