Tuesday, October 1, 2024
GREEN BAY – The UW-System’s “comprehensive” campuses are calling for a new and clear formula to allocate funding the system receives from the state.
The UW System currently consists of two doctoral campuses — Madison and Milwaukee — and 11 comprehensive campuses — Eau Claire, Green Bay, La Crosse, Oshkosh, Parkside, Platteville, River Falls, Stevens Point, Stout, Superior, and Whitewater — and 13 two-year campuses — Baraboo, Barron, Fond du Lac, Fox Valley, Manitowoc, Marathon, Marinette, Marshfield, Richland, Rock, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha.
The current funding allocation is based on a 50-year model that the schools say creates an imbalance in funding.
Called general purpose revenue, or GPR, the funding allocation for schools is based on full-time equivalent (FTE) students.
Green Bay, Whitewater and La Crosse are at the low end of allocation based on that current model with 4,798; 3,619; and 3, 556 GPR per FTE, respectively.
Madison, the UW’s flagship campus, is situated at 10,893 GPR per FTE, with Superior close behind at 10,679 and Parkside at 8,251 next in line.
Set up for failure
UW-Whitewater Professor of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science Eric Compas addressed the state’s Legislative Council Study Committee on the Future of the University System during a public hearing held Sept. 26.
Compas said that he has been working on understanding the funding system for 10 years, with assistance from his school’s chancellors.
“I think right now the system is setting some campuses up for success and some for failure with the way that they're funded. And there's a fairly opaque formula for how campuses are funded that I think potentially needs to be opened up. The Board of Regents has a fiduciary responsibility to properly fund campuses,” Compas stated.
“I think there needs to be more attention paid to this formula. And recently, we've heard about the new budget request from the UW system and President (Jay) Rothman and the attempt to get this system as a whole ‘up to the middle’ and to reach the national standard when it comes to funding. And so I hope that so-called trickles down to the comprehensives.
“When we think about any kind of new monies and how those get allocated, there's been a lot in the last year about the where UW system as a whole ranks across the country, depending on which analysis you look at, we end up at 42nd or 43rd… and I guess the key that I want to highlight here is the way that this has been calculated is all based upon this allocation per FTE. So it's the way we standardize. It's the way we think about how campuses potentially should be funded, is how much allocation you provide per student full-time equivalent to account for part- and full-time students.
In the conversations that we've had with the UW System, trying to figure out; so, I've asked Dick Telfer, the chancellor that I started with. Almost every chancellor has worked on this, and we've asked the UW System to justify this formula. And the response that we've gotten is that no one really knows, it was kind of established probably when the system started in 1972.”
A clear and transparent way
In a letter to the UW Board of Regents, the UW-Green Bay Council of Trustees asked for a better way to distribute the funding.
“We are not asking to take GPR from any other university. We are asking for a clear and transparent way that funding will be allocated in the future. Addressing the legacy inequities will further drive economic development by supporting students and increasing the strong quality of life a regional comprehensive creates in partnership with the community,” the council stated.
“Data shared at (the) Sept. 26 study committee meeting are alarming and show action must be taken to shift the significant imbalances in funding appropriations.
“At the core of the data is the continued restraints the UW System has placed on UW-Green Bay and other institutions that are disadvantaged by the funding model. This model makes it more difficult for UW-Green Bay to continue to sustain and expand its access mission — a mission which supports our thriving region and state.
“Despite UW-Green Bay’s continued growth as one of the only universities in Wisconsin with increased enrollment (19.8% over the last five years), ascending the university to the third-largest comprehensive in the state, the legacy funding model currently allocates eight other comprehensive universities more funding per full-time student. Inaction to adjust the GPR funding is punitive to the students who attend the universities that are innovating and growing to match the evolving nature of higher education. This holds especially true at UW-Green Bay.”
UW-Green Bay data shows that from fall 2020 through fall 2023, UW-Green Bay Student FTE is up 8.9% and expected to grow again in fall 2024, and from fall 2020 through fall 2024, student headcount is projected to be up 19.8% as the school works to expand its enrollment through non-traditional students.
Meanwhile, UW-Green Bay receives 16.3% less GPR per student FTE than UW-Stevens Point and had 433 less Student FTE as of last year. UW-Green Bay also received $8,691,274 less in state funding.
UW-Green Bay received 19.8% less GPR per student FTE than UW-Platteville and had 737 more Student FTE as of last year. UW-Green Bay also received $3,424,056 less in state funding.
A new model
“There are obviously many other ways that you might think about allocating funding to campuses, and the comprehensives in particular; could be the number of students that receive Pell Grants, various things related to debt load,” added Compas.
“The conversation always comes up of the types of programs that different universities offer and how that probably and should play a role in coming up with that allocation.
“I think the key argument that I'm making today is that there needs to be a rational approach to funding, each campus, particularly the comprehensive that right now. There is an antiquated mysterious formula that is not transparent and probably does not reflect the goals of the UW System as a whole.”
Legislative Council Study Committee Member Bob Atwell said that the situation was difficult.
“My mind went to should have the FTE dollars follow the students. You know, let's do the student choice. But, what does that do to Superior? What does that do to Parkside? What does it do to recognize Madison, what they have — the vet school, the med school, the law school? You know, these are not easy decisions and there's a reason why people are scared to open Pandora's box. To me, this speaks to the need to have a strategy. As hard as it is to really say, how are we going to best serve the needs of the whole state and how can we target our investment dollars so that it achieves the multiple objectives we want — rural access, pay equity, the needs of particular students to have success. This is not easy. And so I'm not I'm not defending what hasn't been done. I'm just acknowledging that it's a challenge,” he said.
Legislative Council Study Committee Chair Rep. Amanda Nedweski called Compas’ presentation “eye-opening” for many committee members.
“We look at comparisons of funding per FTE, but that's not the way we arrive at a number we want to ask for in the budget. We're not looking at per FTE cost. We're not looking at what we spend per FTE. We're being asked by program or what's justifying the amount of money,” she said.
“Once it reaches this building, it's a number, and we're trusting the formula and the people that are in charge of that formula to do its work. But we in this building, don't have any justification for what that formula is, and should we? Are we the best people to do that? I'm not sure. But as we look at this information that is informing our decision-making, we're looking at funding per FTE, but we're not looking at costs per FTE. Shouldn't that be the driving piece of information, trying to get the cost per FTE.”
