On Increasing SUNY Revenues, Part 2

Picking up where I left off last night, I could go on for many more pages about what a rhetorically effective political document the SUNY Report on Long-Term Enrollment and Financial Sustainability is.  In addition to what I already noted, I would point to the report's yoking large-scale SUNY research endeavors to state economic development goals, positioning SUNY to leapfrog others in those emergent fields and industries, framing SUNY as the workforce development answer to needs in "high-demand sectors," and the sheer poetry of

SUNY’s commitment to excellence in operational and fiscal stewardship on behalf of the students and taxpayers we serve anchors SUNY’s success and enables us to provide extraordinary value. Fiscal sustainability requires both ongoing revenue increases and continuous attention to operational efficiency, along with a commitment to the difficult decisions necessary to ensure financial health. (Executive Summary, pg. 2)

as key examples, among many, of how thoughtfully and persuasively the report is directed toward and customized for its primary audiences:  Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature.

Not being part of those audiences, however, I tend to distrust my judgments about the report's rhetorical and political effectiveness, and not just because the ripple effects of its release last Friday are only just beginning to be felt.  I fully admit I have a lot to learn from Chancellor King—who after all has risen to the highest level of state and federal education agency leadership before winning a national search to become SUNY's next leader—when it comes to navigating relationships with elected officials.

So instead of giving more and more reasons why the report is certainly A-range material, I'll turn to analyzing it as an example of negotiating the constraints and parameters on political speech in New York State's political environment as we enter 2024.  Of course, as a campus governance leader, I have a lot more freedom of speech than a university president or system chancellor, and I haven't been shy about using it.  But before exercising it, there's a lot to be said for close reading the report's ambiguities, gaps, and other modes of drawing readers in, making them active participants in the construction of its meaning, and deftly wielding the power of suggestion.

Let's start with a simple question:  why did it take until page 51 of the report for teacher education to be featured?

On the projected growth in education, it is important to note that SUNY is the state’s largest educator preparation provider and that these programs are vital both to SUNY and to the success of New York’s K-12 public education system. (Report, pg. 51, emphasis added)

Or rather, first featured as a general topic, rather than tied to a specific SUNY campus?

The UB Teacher Residency Program seeks to increase the ranks, diversity, and retention of teachers in Buffalo amid a looming teacher shortage, increasing the university’s ties to BPS and improving student outcomes. (Report, pg. 37, emphasis added)

Or rather, why did only one former "normal" school—a campus originally founded with teacher education as its core mission, a campus listed in the "University Colleges" or "Comprehensives" sector by SUNY and UFS—make it into the report specifically regarding its teacher education mission, and then only with respect to a privately-funded microcredential?

SUNY New Paltz’s Science of Reading Center of Excellence has also launched SUNY’s first-ever science of reading fundamentals microcredential. This fully online, self-paced microcredential supports New York State teachers in enhancing literacy instruction. A generous scholarship funded by philanthropy is making the microcredential available to the first 5,000 participants for just $50 per educator. (Report, pg. 21)

One of the reasons, it seems to me this afternoon after watching the livestream from Watervliet Elementary School of Governor Hochul's second preview of next Tuesday's State of the State Address, is that a proposal to invest $10M in new funding to advance the science of reading through SUNY/CUNY microcredentials will be part of the Executive Budget for State Fiscal Year 2025.  Thus, while the SUNY report is certainly politically canny, I can't help but be worried that its emphasis on new initiatives in other areas will put the everyday work of meeting the national and statewide teacher shortage through the teaching and learning and clinical experiences gained in elementary and adolescence education programs at places like my own home campus of SUNY Fredonia on the back burner—or worse, left out in the cold. 

These rhetorical roads not taken trouble me, as they are likely to have financial implications.  Yesterday, for instance, Governor Hochul's first proposal on consumer protection and affordability could have—and, I would argue, should have—included college affordability (hello, Fredonia University Senate resolution and UFS resolution!) and protection from for-profit higher ed (hello, Tressie McMillan Cottom's 2017 classic, Lower Ed:  The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy!) as central initiatives in her agenda.  IF they are actually part of her agenda.  And that, now, is apparently a big if.

Which leads me right back to the central dilemma that the SUNY report so masterfully and confidently and diplomatically tiptoed around:  when the political reflex of so many in your primary audience is to raise tuition for public higher ed students to offset or at least mitigate real-dollar cuts to direct state aid, when this pattern has held in New York State for decades, when many states are reporting downturns in tax receipts, when the prospect of a "soft landing" (the Fed taming inflation without triggering a recession)  is still in doubt, when the New York State Budget Director and Comptroller have been faithfully playing their fiscally conservative roles (alongside the Citizens Budget Commission) and the joint Quick Start Report has continued in that vein, closing with "The Governor will propose a FY 2025 Executive Budget by January 16, 2024, that will include a plan to provide for balanced General Fund operations on a cash basis in FY 2025" (pg. 14)—when all that history and context shapes how the SUNY report will be received, interpreted, and responded to—how to help the very decision-makers who have put SUNY on a path toward a billion-dollar operating deficit by 2034 understand the choices facing them in State Fiscal Year 2025?  How to both suggest that something has to give and defer to the very Governor whose constitutionally-mandated role in the state budget process is to be the fiscal conservative in the room at the end game of budget negotiations?

Here are some hints:

• "Thanks to the generosity of the State, and as shown on the following charts, SUNY State-operated campuses have relatively low tuition and fees compared to other states. This reinforces SUNY’s incredible value and creates space for SUNY to enact moderate increases in tuition while remaining extremely competitive with other states" (Report, pg. 57).
• "As the following chart shows, System-wide expenditures are projected to grow to $6.9 billion by 2033-34, accounting for both collective bargaining agreements and cost controls intended to promote efficiency. With no investment in resources beyond the committed increases in the State’s current financial plan, SUNY would face a $1.1 billion annual shortfall at the end of this period. With reasonable, predictable, ongoing increases in resources, SUNY would instead face an $89.1 million annual shortfall by the end of this period" (Report, pg. 60).
• "Without reasonable, predictable, and reliable increases in resources over the next decade, SUNY will fail to achieve operational sustainability and be unable to meet the needs of New York State’s students, families, and employers. While the above model uses tuition increases to create projections, there are effectively two revenue sources that can serve this vital role: One is sustained and predictable tuition and fee increases, and the other is continued increases in Direct State Tax Support" (Report, pg. 61).

I'll pick this up in another post tomorrow!

Update (1/6/2024)

Please see Part 3.

On Increasing SUNY Revenues

Quick note that I'm working on a response to Kathleen Moore's Albany Times-Union story on SUNY's revenue issues that will take more than an x-twitter thread to develop, as it represents the media's first pass at digesting a SUNY report on Long-Term Enrollment and Financial Sustainability that was submitted to Governor Hochul and the state legislature last Friday (and that I am seeing for the first time right now).

Why should you care what I think about increasing SUNY's revenues?  Well, not only am I the Chairperson of the Fredonia University Senate and Immediate Past Vice President/Secretary of the SUNY University Faculty Senate and an active member of both governance bodies' Executive Committees, but I have also been intimately involved in developing their—our—approach to state budget advocacy for many years.  Many of the ideas first explored on this very blog, dating back to my first term as Senate chair (2009-2010), have made their way into official resolutions and statements from campus, and SUNY-wide, governance bodies.

As you probably can imagine, I'm incredibly hopeful that ideas we've been pitching for years and that I've been researching for decades—most recently summarized in a UFS Fall 2023 resolution and the Fredonia University Senate's website and online petition—have been incorporated into this report.  I'm worried about the consequences for Fredonia if they aren't, or aren't picked up and run with by Governor Hochul and the legislature.

After I digest some lunch, I'm diving into the SUNY report.  I'll update this post with my first pass at it before dinner!

UPDATE 1 (7:54 pm) [yes, after dinner]

On the whole, I would give SUNY's 80-page document/74-page report a solid B+, and probably an A- if I were feeling generous.  You'll see why I'm not by the end of this, but let's start with what's really really really good in this report—why it may well be the best piece of research, analysis, and writing to come out of SUNY System Administration in my 25-year-plus career at Fredonia.

(1) Start by reading the initial 3-page Executive Summary for yourself.

• Check out how economically it references so many items from the UFS's list of Public Good U metaphors that emphasize how well SUNY contributes to the public good and serves New York State:  anchor of community, foundation for democracy, platform for civic engagement, engine of economic development, pathway to the middle class and beyond, magnet for population growth and private investment, generator of creativity and innovation, seedbed for human health and flourishing, and catalyst for sustainable communities and ecosystems.
• Check out the places it refers to the same Rockefeller Institute report UFS has been using in its resolutions for years (Fall 2023, Fall 2022, Fall 2021, Winter 2020, Winter 2019):  "According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government, SUNY’s economic impact in 2018 was $28.6 billion, or 1.9% of gross state product. For every $1 the State invests in SUNY, there is an $8.17 return" (Executive Summary, pg. 2; see also Report, pp. 54-55).
• Check out how effectively it updates language from Chancellor King's Summer 2023 State of the University Address and sets up the expanded rationale for SUNY's December 2023 state budget request, all organized in the form of a very short story that SUNY is on the move and, with the right support, poised to accelerate its progress.
• After you finish it, how do you feel about SUNY?  How eager are you to help SUNY get to the promised land by doing your part to "ensure its place as the nation’s leading statewide comprehensive public system of higher education"?

If you were a state decision-maker, how would you feel about the choice the Executive Summary presents you with (near its end but not at it)?

With no investment in resources beyond the committed increases in the State’s current financial plan, SUNY would face a $1.1 billion annual shortfall at the end of this period [the decade]. With reasonable, predictable, ongoing increases in resources, SUNY would instead face an $89.1 million annual shortfall, which could be readily managed through efficiencies, collaboration, and other actions. Reasonable, predictable, ongoing increase in resources could be achieved through (1) modest, differential tuition increases; and/or (2) modest, consistent increases in annual state operating aid. (Executive Summary, pg. 3)

Note the "and/or" (which the Times-Union headline writers missed):  it raises the question of what combination of public and private revenue sources SUNY should be running on over the next decade.  And since only the Governor and the Legislature control direct state aid, tuition, and indirect state aid (including the Tuition Assistance Program [TAP] and the Excelsior Scholarship), this is a very high-stakes and delicate question, particularly for Chancellor King and his team in SUNY System Administration.

(2) Consider what answers to this question are suggested and implied by the main report.

• Mix, Leaning Public:  "Building on SUNY’s longstanding reputation for excellence, SUNY will lead the nation in timely degree and credential completion for all students and provide the academic, financial, and wraparound supports students need to thrive" (2, emphasis added).  Great goal, which implies most likely a combination of direct state aid, indirect state financial aid, and redistribution of tuition—which some students pay at higher levels, some lesser, and some not at all—to help all students graduate and succeed (with the understanding that higher family income and wealth are correlated for most students with higher retention and graduation rates, although as the report carefully observes, those correlations often break down for specific student populations, such as many of the ones listed on page 2 of the Executive Summary and detailed on pp. 31-43 of the Report).
• Mix, Heavily Leaning Public:  Check out every time ASAP (Accelerated Study in Associate Programs) and ACE (Accelerate, Complete, and Engage) are mentioned in the report (see especially pp. 3-4, 31-32, 34, 69-70) and how often these CUNY-originated, highly successful and verified-effective programs are associated with "scaling up" or "making sustainable"; this is Albany-speak for turning one-time state performance funding into repeating direct state aid.  Depending on how quickly and at what scale the Governor and Legislature follow through on this, less tuition dollars will need to be redistributed to accelerate these proven programs.
• Mix, Slight Lean Public:  Check out how effectively the Report deploys statistics to support its overall point, most notably with respect to enrollment (pp. 24-30) and return on investment of direct and indirect state aid (pp. 23, 54-61).  The stats overall lean public because the vast majority of recent and proposed efforts to increase recruitment and retention cost money in the short run to implement but should end up being a large net positive over time; the more new state direct aid is put into these efforts, the larger the return on investment is the implication.
• Neither:  Check out how often a hidden, third thing intervenes—operational efficiencies that allow SUNY System and campuses to be more effective at what they do while saving money doing it.  These include academic portfolio optimization, operational collaboration, and addressing structural imbalances summarized on page 2 of the Executive Summary and explained at greater length on pp. 44-51, pp. 52-53/62-63, and pp. 63-65, respectively, of the Report. (Also note how comparatively vague or even incomplete these sections are, compared to other sections. More on this soon.)

(3) Consider how adroitly the Executive Summary and Report navigate the highly charged issues that have roiled national higher ed politics and policy in recent days, weeks, months, and years.

• Directly:  See pg. 1 of the Executive Summary and pp. 13-17 of the Report for specifics on race-conscious admissions; diversity, equity, inclusion; and antisemitism and Islamophobia.
• Indirectly:  See pg. 1 (on student success) and pg. 2 (on enrollment) of the Executive Summary, along with pp. 31-43 of the Report, for specifics on realizing the principle that "There is a place within SUNY’s diverse and dynamic system for every New Yorker, and we believe that for so many New Yorkers, claiming that place and capitalizing on it is the singular experience that can expand their horizons, better their lives, and cement their futures" (Executive Summary, pg. 2) and fleshing out the overall plan: "In order for every student to know there is a place for them at SUNY and a pathway to success once they get here, SUNY will continue to advance our four priority pillars—student success; research and scholarship; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and economic development and upward mobility—alongside an equally urgent commitment to excellence in operational and fiscal stewardship on behalf of the students and taxpayers we serve" (Report, pg. 1).  

Check this for yourself by searching the document for "place":  almost every single time this word appears on its own, it's for a very specific purpose!

OK, gotta take a break from this close read of the positives in the report to run an errand with the family.  More coming!

Update 2 (1/4/2024, 1:57 pm)

Please see Part 2.