Colleges up for $8.5M increase
State to examine low faculty pay
The Arkansas Division of Higher Education and its coordinating board are recommending lawmakers approve $8.5 million more in state appropriations to the state’s higher education institutions.
The schools overall were more “productive,” although about half of them would lose money under the recommendations. The other half would gain what the other schools lost, plus what they additionally are due under the state’s new formula for funding higher education.
The formula, implemented following Act 148 of 2017, measures school performance against previous years, multiplies the difference by the school’s base funding, and caps gains and losses at 2%.
The coordinating board approved the recommended changes with little discussion Friday.
Board members, however, expressed an interest in investigating why Arkansas has some of the lowest average salaries for faculty compared with other Southern states. The state is last among 16 in the Southern Regional Education Board for faculty pay at four-year institutions. It’s 14th for faculty pay at community colleges.
Board member Keven Anderson speculated that could be tied to spending on faculty. He noted the state’s schools having been hiring more adjunct faculty — a trend in higher education in an era of stagnant state funding and increased administrative staff and salaries.
Nick Fuller, division deputy director, said it’s possible schools’ early retirement incentives pushed out higher-salaried people from the calculations and brought in younger, lower-salaried people.
“I don’t have a specific reason,” he said.
Division Director Maria Markham said those kinds of incentives aren’t unique to Arkansas.
“I think this is something that we should research further and report back to the board,” Markham said.
Fuller’s report also noted that Arkansas has some of the lowest spending per full-time-equivalent student and some of the highest enrollment declines among those 16 Southern states.
After years of unchanging state funding as costs
rose, next year would be the third in a row in which the state has spent more on higher education.
Last year, for the current school year, the division and board recommended a $7.4 million increase for the state’s colleges and universities, which lawmakers ultimately approved. That was a 1.2% increase on the previous year, coinciding with a 1.3% increase in productivity over the three previous years.
The state’s schools were 1.5% more productive during the most recent three-year period, according to the division.
Universities were the most productive, 3.7% more than before. The state’s community colleges were 2.6% less productive.
That means $6.3 million more recommended for universities and $2.2 million more for community colleges. Increases will go only to schools with productivity increases.
For universities, if approved, only two schools would receive less money than last year: the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith ($227,568 less, for a $23.9 million total), and Henderson State University ($16,758 less, for a $21.2 million total).
The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville would get $2.3 million more, bringing its state funding to $133.3 million, and Southern Arkansas University would get $1.2 million, bringing its state funding to $18.6 million.
SAU’s productivity index grew the most of any school in the state, by 14.6%.
For community colleges, 14 of the 22 schools would lose money from the state.
The largest loss would be at the University of Arkansas-Pulaski Technical College. After a 13.7% drop in productivity, the school would lose $224,791, according to the state’s formula.
Northwest Arkansas Community College would see the biggest bump in its state appropriation: $1.4 million after a 4.9% productivity increase.
Information on why productivity indices improved or worsened at specific schools was not presented to the coordinating board Friday.
The productivity funding formula accounts for school “effectiveness,” affordability, efficiency and research. “Effectiveness” includes the number of credentials awarded, the number of students reaching progression points, the number of students passing gateway courses and the success of transfer students.
Metrics are often weighted. For example, certificates of proficiency are multiplied by 0.5, and doctoral degrees are multiplied by 6. Schools also get to multiply progression figures for underserved race, income or academic backgrounds or for people from 25 to 54 years old by 0.29. Those metrics compose only a certain percentage of a school’s overall productivity score.
For years, Arkansas higher education leaders requested funding based on school needs, largely factoring in the number of enrolled students. The amounts would have required tens of millions more dollars from the state Legislature and were consistently rejected in favor of keeping the funding the same.
During that time, some schools grew by hundreds of students and others declined in enrollment. That means schools’ base funding, used in the formula, is calculated off a figure that assumes a different student population.
Schools that now have higher enrollment may still receive significantly less money than schools that once had more students. However, students from underserved populations have always counted for more in funding formulas because of the higher cost of ensuring their success.