Editorial: Corbett declares truce in higher education funding

Harrisburg appears to be moving along at a very unexciting pace in determining next year’s funding for higher education.

Last Friday, Gov. Tom Corbett announced that his state budget proposal would include no changes in funding for the state-related institutions of higher education. If the governor is to be believed, Pitt, Penn State University, Temple University and Lincoln University will receive the same levels of support as last year, so long as tuition-level increases don’t begin to drastically exceed the rate of inflation.

This marks a new course from previous years, when the Corbett’s opening budget proposals often called for draconian cuts. Acrimonious discussions between school officials, legislators and students were then dragged out over the months, leading to a final, unpredictable deal before the June 30 budget deadline.

This year’s low-key debate is a nice change, and much of it can be attributed to one thing: the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Postsecondary Education.

Many commissions in government don’t enjoy this usefulness. Reports get made, papers get filed, but the status quo continues with neither party fully accepting the recommendations suggested.

But the governor’s commission, which consisted of officials in education and policy, including Chancellor Mark Nordenberg, produced some clear promises that could form the bedrock of a new, reasonable education policy.

The state agreed that erratic changes in funding make planning difficult for institutions of higher education and that there is a responsibility to provide a consistent level of support that can be counted on.

State universities agreed that cost containment must be a priority and that educating new generations of Pennsylvanians will require investment in new forms of teaching that might disrupt traditional modes of learning.

With these guiding principles firmly in place and with both sides acting in good faith that a long-term commitment has been reached, these budget discussions might lose the harsh edge they have been gathering in recent years.

The real question, however, is how the state decides to handle its budget if natural gas and today’s very modest economic growth are no longer enough to sustain budgets.

Will state authorities be willing to cut elsewhere or tax more to maintain the promises they have made to universities?

And on the school’s side, today’s commitment to cost containment is good, but the real transition to lower-cost education, which might begin in earnest over the next decade, will lead to some harsh decisions.

Will school authorities be willing to completely re-evaluate their programs to match to the needs and resources of the modern economy?

These very tough decisions will need to be made in the future. Only when this time comes will we see the strength of this truce between education providers and the state.

But until then, we can all enjoy the relative peace. The governor and school officials seem to be roughly on the same page, and for the first time in three years, March, April and May will not be devoted to vicious fighting and political stalemate over state support for higher education.