Report to the YSU Academic Senate on the Ohio Faculty Council, May 1, 2002, Tom Shipka 1. I have made available in hard copy today for the Senate a document entitled “Ten Observations” which was prepared by the Ohio Board of Regents for the Higher Education Funding Commission.  This document provides an overview of higher education in Ohio and shows the relatively poor status of funding, participation, and graduation rates in our state.  Please take time to review this. 2. The Ohio Faculty Council met at the Ohio Board of Regents suite on Friday, April 19, 2002, from noon until approximately 3:00 p.m.  The next meeting is scheduled at the same site and time on Friday, May 17, 2002, and Jim Morrison will attend that meeting as our representative because I will be out of the state. Only seven campus representatives attended last Friday’s meeting out of thirty who are eligible.  Normally about twelve to fourteen attend.  The OFC began its session with a working luncheon with our two-year counterpart, the Ohio Faculty Senate of Community and Technical Colleges, during which we discussed a variety of matters of mutual concern, including general education and intellectual property concerns related to distance education.  Interestingly, the two-year group had far better attendance than the four-year group. During the OFC regular session, I presented a report to the group which I will summarize for you today.  There is a grant portability agreement between Ohio and Pennsylvania which has been in effect for some twenty years under which Ohio residents may carry their Ohio Instructional Grant with them if they attend postsecondary institutions in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania residents may carry their Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency Grant (PHEAA Grant) with them if they attend postsecondary institutions in Ohio.  Several months ago I asked President Sweet to make an official request to OBOR for information about participation and spending under this agreement.  Here is what the OBOR staff discovered in their investigation and reported to us.   In 2000-2001 1,377 Ohio recipients of the Ohio Instructional Grant attended Pennsylvania institutions at a cost to Ohio of $2,738,031.67.  Meanwhile, in that year 2,006 Pennsylvania recipients of the PHEAA Grant attended Ohio institutions at a cost to Pennsylvania of $1,118,989.00.  Thus, overall Ohio spent $1,619,042.60 more than Pennsylvania spent, and Ohio spent an average of $1,988.40 per student while Pennsylvania spent an average of $557.82 per student.  279 of the 2,006 Pennsylvania residents attended YSU in 2000-2001 at a cost to Pennsylvania of $138,873.   When OBOR discovered this discrepancy, they moved quickly to renegotiate the agreement with Pennsylvania.  The new agreement restricts Ohio spending per student to the same level as Pennsylvania spending per student – $600 per non-veteran and $800 per veteran – except that Ohio residents already enrolled in Pennsylvania institutions are grandfathered through spring 2006.  The grant portability picture for 2000-2001 is almost certainly the same as in preceding years, but OBOR has apparently not tracked the data to be certain.  The reason for the discrepancy is that the OIG, a need-based grant, awards up to $5,160 per year, while the PHEAA grant caps at $600 for non-veterans and $800 for veterans.  The Ohio money was spent not only at Pennsylvania public and private colleges and universities but proprietary schools as well.  For instance, in 2000-2001 Ohio spent $467,637.77 at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh and $390,609.00 at the Pennsylvania Institute of Culinary Arts.  Anyone who cares to see the full data on grant portability should check with me after this meeting. The only other major item of business at the meeting was a briefing to the OFC by Vice Chancellor Robert Sheehan.  Among other things, he informed the group that, by direction of Governor Taft, OBOR is releasing a high school transition report by school district at the end of May which will show the number and percentage of each district’s graduates who attended postsecondary institutions and who required remediation in them.  Dr. Sheehan said that the report will probably cause a stir in the press.  Dr. Sheehan said that the report will show that college remediation is linked directly to whether students followed an academic (pre-college) curriculum in high school.  Apparently a great many Ohio high school graduates who enroll in colleges and who require remediation did not pursue a pre-college curriculum in high school.  Dr. Sheehan said that the research revealed shocking data in some cases.  For instance, in a recent year Cleveland public schools enrolled only 300 students in the academic (pre-college) curriculum. The data on grant portability which YSU caused to be compiled and released, in my opinion, should deepen our concern about higher education spending by Ohio.  When you combine the grant portability picture with the overall financial aid picture, you realize that the line between public and private higher education institutions in our state is very thin indeed.  As I reported to you previously, last year Ohio spent more in higher education financial aid on students in private and proprietary institutions ($97,000,000) than it did on students in public institutions ($83,000,000). I am happy to respond to any questions.

Top of Page