CAPE GIRARDEAU NEWS GUARDIAN: HIGHER EDUCATION: REFORM NOT MORE DOLLARS

"The time has come to decide that programs that don't work or don't deliver must be restructured dramatically before they merit additional support - now or in the future." Missouri Governor John Ashcroft in his State of the State Message on January 15, 1991.

With that simple sentence Ashcroft served notice to the state legislature that he was not prepared to accept the "business as usual" approach in this tough economic climate.

Among those who most need to listen to this message (the message of the majority of the people of the state of Missouri) are the educators and legislators who are pushing for a new tax to benefit higher education.

That tax proposal was introduced Thursday by Senate Majority Leader James L. Matthewson. The bill that he introduced seeks to raise Missouri's taxes by $492 million per year.

Matthewson's bill called for higher education to receive 60 percent of the $492 million - $295 million per year.

Included in the measure are proposed additional taxes on corporations of $106 million and a proposed half-cent sales tax increase that's intended to raise $190 million.

This proposal comes in the face of some dramatic economic measures that had to be taken by Ashcroft recently. Because of a shrinking tax base the state budget allocations had to be reduced by $70 million for this fiscal year. Why were state revenues down? Largely because revenue from corporate income taxes were down about 4 per cent from the previous year. Yet educators and some legislators are now promoting a new tax that would raise corporate taxes by $106 million a year.

As if that isn't ridiculous enough, one of the justifications that is being used in promoting the tax is that it will be used to make Missouri more desirable to new businesses.

Matthewson's bill indicates that 5 percent will be used for "economic development". In truth this is not for "economic development", it is for job training. That should be labeled Vocational Education, but the term "economic development" sounds wonderful when attached to any bill that is presented to the legislature.

If economic development is desired then the legislature should run their business like any corporation has to in order to survive.

Matthewson is trying to justify his bill on the basis of anticipated "reform" of higher education in the state.

This is a wonderful concept and truly very necessary. Reform has to be demanded of higher education. The former Commissioner of Higher Education in Missouri, Shaila Aery, called for reform two years ago. The educators did not heed her message then, but say they are willing to now - if the legislature will give them additional funding first.

This concept is ridiculous! University of Missouri President Peter Magrath is quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as saying colleges were "prepared to accept change and reform and improvement" if this package were passed.

That's analagous to giving your child his allowance and then expecting him to perform his agreed-to chores at a later date. A parent wouldn't do this because it gives the wrong message.

If reform is needed (and few will disagree that it is), then that reform should take place first, then if the reform is effective more funding can be discussed at that point.

Sen. John Schneider, D-Florissant, was a member of a state commission that studied the proposed funding for higher education. He appears unsure that higher education is willing to change. He says, "All there are, are promises."

The legislature and the citizens of Missouri must require more than promises before higher education is given a gift of $295 million.

The state of Missouri is currently spending $600 million per year for higher education. Those who are promoting that this tax increase be put before the voters are asking for 50 percent increase for next year.

What business has a right to expect a 50 percent increase in revenue handed to them?

How many people in the state of Missouri will see their income jump by 50 percent next year?

Enrollment in Missouri public colleges and universities has risen about 5 percent a year over the past couple of years, yet educators are asking for a tax that will provide them with a 50 percent increase in state revenue.

Quoting Gov. Ashcroft, "All they talk about is how much you spend (on higher education). Many industries went out of existence because they spent too much."

University administrators need to take some lessons from the businesses on whom they are now trying to impose more taxes. When economic times are tough a business must deliver a better product at a more competitive price.

The other real problem with Matthewson's bill is that he's trying to build a structure from the top to the bottom rather than starting at the foundation.

The bill includes provisions for increases in funding to elementary and secondary education of $172 million. That's 42 percent less of an increase than what is advocated for higher education.

This in spite of the fact that fewer than half of all graduating high school students attend college. Only 14 percent of Missourians have a four-year college degree.

Higher education is seeking over $30 million per year to fund remedial programs. These programs are designed to bring college students up to a college learning level.

Couple this with the fact that 25 percent of all college freshmen drop out of school and it should be easy to see that if money is to be thrown at a problem, more should go towards educating our youth before they get to college (if they ever get there at all).

About 13 percent of the entire United States adult population is functionally illiterate. In Southeast Missouri that figure rises to 15 percent. This is not a problem that higher education can solve. This is a problem for elementary schools. This is where the money should be spent.

When almost a million Missourians have trouble reading this newspaper and cannot fill out a job application, we should not be spending millions of dollars to buy William Faulkner's books for a privileged few.

A local Headstart official says enrollment in the program in Cape Girardeau could double from its present 60 youngsters if more money was available. If we cannot afford the few dollars needed to provide these needy children a level playing field at the beginning of their education, how can we justify giving $300 million more per year to higher education?

Graduation rates from high schools in Missouri are an abyssmal 75 percent. It costs the state about 10 times more in social services for individuals lacking basic education. The state corrections department estimates that the average inmate referred to them has only a 7th grade education.

Higher education is not the most urgent need for these funds. Matthewson's and higher education's call for more taxes must be confronted.

When the much-talked-about reforms have happened, then, and only then, will the legislators, college land university presidents, and college lobbyists have more of a right to appeal for additional taxes. (Yes. College lobbyists...Some universities in the state of Missouri while complaining about the lack of funds they have available to them, pay lobbyists upwards of $50,000 a year to lead their appeals for higher taxes.)

Let higher education get its house in order first, then ask for taxes.

(First in a series)