As Nearly Free As Possible
... since April 2001.” Also that “a new set of budget reductions of the magnitude proposed would by the Legislature would be devastating to the universities” (A23). It would seem that the inevitable increase in tuition would go to the state in an effort to cover or soften the deficit as well as the expected budget cuts. In an editorial written in the East Valley Tribune, Bob Schuster writes, “more student aid is needed and upgrading higher education in Arizona is necessary” (A22). In same article, Michael Crow is quoted as stating, “the current tuition rate is misleading because at even such low levels, parsimonious financial aid offerings are still pricing students out of getting a college degree” (A22). In days that followed the House and Senate appropriations chairmen called for a “new 5 percent in cuts for $37 million by June 30 to aid in preventing a deficit of $360 million this fiscal year” (Templar A8). “The universities’ leaders urged lawmakers to follow Gov. Napalitano’s proposal which would protect university funding by borrowing money in several areas to bring down deficits” (Templar A8). The Arizona Board of Regents held open forums for university students and faculty to voice their concerns over the tuition hike. At each the students, showed a rising interest in ascertaining exactly where these funds would be spent and looking to detour the Board from 1) raising tuition and 2) if raised, to detour the Board from giving the money directly over to the state and using it for increased financial aid and faculty salary increases. Finally, amidst protests from a few minority groups on March 7th the policy, was passed unanimously by the Board of Regents, as well as a measure to increase the percent of tuition revenues used for financial aid from 8% to 14% (Hart 1). The implementation of the tuition hike is still in the process of completion as the beginning of the new fiscal year approaches. Some ideas to soften the blow of the increase is in offering students a payment plan as well as offer an increased number of grants to those students who qualify for the needed assistance. In the scope of our Public Policy class we have looked at government spending an it’s effects on the economy and in large part society. In the generalized sense we have grown our public spending, as a country by large amounts, since the last century. At the same time we have instituted more and more programs and through technology, population growth and militarization we have caused this growth in spending. We focus on individualism as a society and are apt to avoid collective decision-making. In collective decision-making we define an issue or a problem, then choose a solution through policy and finally impose costs. As we discuss these costs each side is more apt to exaggerate their costs and levy the government in appropriations. Case-in-point, the state is looking to balance it’s huge deficit and the cost is the simple cutbacks which effectively cause an outward ripple to other programs and services which receive funding from that agency. In Michael Crow’s plan looked to “change the funding approach for several areas and eventually eliminate their reliance on state aid” (Templar A8). These new ideas seem to be blocked by a stagnant GOP party who seeks to find away to alleviate the cost through ample and adequate cutbacks. In Thomas Dye’s book, Top Down Policymaking, we looked at the steps in the process of policymaking, specifically policy legitimation and implementation. One such group is the proximate policymakers who answer not only to public opinion but their elites as well. In this scenario, both the media and the undergraduate populous of the three institutions are swaying the public opinion. But, due to the fact that the deficit was already in place before some of these policymakers were in power, I feel that many of the evaluation will not take place until there is a new election on the rise. It seems as though everyone is pointing a finger the other way, or “passing the buck”, and my understanding of the evaluation and legitimation, having worked in theory, we would have removed those who cause these problems and returned with “new” proximate policymakers who would garner a better outcome then what is transpiring. The tuition increase, although stated for the use of more financial aid, and to assist the university in competing for faculty to aid in bringing prowess to this institution, seems merely to be an assistance to aid the state government in a softening of their deficit. The main concern of the student body is “where the money will go”. Even in the readings we have approached the policymaking in terms of what is better for the collective good, as is seen by the elites and those from the top down. However, in the real world, the backlash of the public seems to carry a great bearing on how proximate policymakers react to public opinion. In our discussion on bureaucracy, we discussed how critically important it was to government. No matter what the policy is, it is based in very general terms and through such left open to interpretation. Going back to the Arizona Constitution, which states that education would be “as close to free as possible”, we would begin to think at what actual cost it would be. The other programs that are in the state’s budget incur the costs. The proximate policymakers instituted their tuition increase due to the increasing reluctance of the state, or inability, to cover that initial cost to provide or implement the policy set forth by the constitution. The institutions and their governing board see the state as unresponsive, inefficient, and ineffective in aiding to implement the state’s written policy. At the same time the state has guarded itself with a lot of red tape to force the lower agencies to justify their use of the monies distributed to them and to run a “fine tooth comb” through their expenditures. I kind of view this the same way that Thomas Friedman, in his book, The Lexus and ...