Conference deals with higher-ed issues

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) held its annual state meeting in St. Louis on Feb. 24. Once again, state funding for higher education was an issue.

In her address to the meeting, State Senator Rita Days summarized the problem. There is no constitutional obligation for the state to fund higher education. Hence, when the state is in particular financial distress, as it was during the recession earlier this decade, higher education tends to be one of the easiest and largest targets for reduction in state appropriations. Tuition rises as state higher education institutions struggle to make up for that reduction.

Following this most recent recession, what was cut has not yet been restored.

John Harms, outgoing president of the AAUP Missouri Conference, has noted that between the fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2006, state appropriations in Missouri for higher education declined 10.8 percent.

In terms of percentage of the state budget, 16.8 percent was dedicated to higher education in 1980. This had declined to 12.7 percent by 2007. Correlated with decline in state appropriations is a dramatic increase in tuition.

Tuition at Missouri's public four-year colleges and universities, according to the Missouri Budget Project, increased 58 percent between 2001 and 2006.

As Harms also notes, Missouri currently ranks 46 among states in appropriations for higher education and ranks well behind all seven surrounding states in terms of both per capita spending and appropriations per $1,000 of personal income.

At least two consequences for students are painfully apparent: the increased expense of attending a state university or college in Missouri and the resulting increase in student loan debt. This raises issues of affordability and accessibility of public higher education in the state.

It also raises issues regarding who teaches in higher education classrooms.

Richard Schneirov, labor historian at Indiana State University, addressed the meeting on the increasing use in higher education during recent decades of contingent faculty: part-time instructors - often graduate students - and full-time instructors not eligible for academic tenure.

From the standpoint of institutions, it typically costs less to have a course taught by a contingent faculty member than by a tenured or tenure-track faculty member. Under financial pressure, one response for institutions was to increase use of contingent instructors.

One problem with this, as Schneirov observed, is that conditions for good teaching by contingent instructors are often absent. While compensation for some contingent faculty members in professional programs is significant, pay is more often than not low.

It is not unusual to hear part-time instructors in particular compare unfavorably what they earn on an hourly basis to what fast-food workers earn. Often dependent on contracts for an academic quarter or semester, contingent faculty members lack academic freedom protections. They sometimes even lack basic necessities for the job: access to telephones, computers and office space.

Integration of contingent faculty into faculty governance and professional development activities often does not occur - or else it only occurs on a limited basis. While many contingent faculty members teach well, it is despite these conditions.

The issues described above indicate the need for students and faculty concerned with affordability and accessibility of public higher education to work together through our organizations and our communications with legislators to get across the message, summarized by Harms: "Missouri needs an investment formula for higher education tied to a reliable and adequate revenue source." Stuart McAninch is an associate professor of Urban Leadership and Policy Studies in Education at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.