Students at the state’s three universities are no longer in danger of having to come up with some out-of-pocket cash to attend classes.
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said Friday he has pulled the plug on his legislation which would have required most students to pay at least $2,000 toward their annual tuition. Kavanagh had argued the measure would ensure students have some “skin in the game,” making it more likely they would take their education seriously.
But he concluded there is no way now — and probably ever — he can get the votes for the plan.
“The misinformation became so toxic that the controversy boiled over, making it impossible for members to consider it,” he told Capitol Media Services. “So I just dropped it.”
Kavanagh said that “misinformation” included claims that it would force veterans who now can be eligible for federal grants to give them up in part to meet that $2,000 threshold. Kavanagh said the legislation would have created an exemption for them, as well as for students who, because they do not live near a school, have the additional expense of room and board.
Those concerns bubbled over after the legislation was approved by the House Appropriations Committee, he said, and reached the point where his legislative colleagues were being bombarded with calls and e-mails, to the point that they were no longer willing to support the legislation. That left him without sufficient votes to bring HB 2675.
Kavanagh said the issue is dead, not only for this year but probably permanently.
He said, though, the issue remains of whether the tuition system is fair.
Kavanagh’s legislation is a direct outgrowth of comments last year by Arizona State University President Michael Crow who told lawmakers that half of students at his school had no out-of-pocket expenses for tuition.
The Board of Regents put that figure system-wide for the 2009-2010 school year at 45 percent; last year it was 36 percent.
But regents’ lobbyist Christine Thompson said the number are “an anomoly,” with preliminary figures for this year -- at least at ASU -- to be in the 24 percent range. Anyway, she said, the students getting a free ride are, as a whole, not being subsidized by the state but are supplementing their scholarships with federal Pell grants.
Kavanagh said, though, that ignores the other problem he wants to address: some students subsidizing others.
Written policy of the Board of Regents requires that at least 14 percent of what students pay in tuition be set aside for need-based financial aid. But the regents have currently set that figure at 17 percent.
“It’s the middle and upper-income students who pay full or almost full tuition, part of which is being diverted for the more needy students,” Kavanagh said.
“My bill allowed 80 percent subsidy,” he explained.
“I just wanted the last 20 percent to be the responsibility of the student, regardless of the student’s financial status,” Kavanagh continued. “But apparently that was too much to ask in the minds of many people.”
While Kavanagh had crafted exceptions, many of those who objected said they were too narrow.
For example, while his legislation would have exempted students paying room and board to a university, it would not have granted similar treatment to those who live on their own and have expenses for rent and food. And the proposal did not consider other special costs that students might have, like child care.
The Arizona Constitution does require instruction to be “as nearly free as possible.” But the state Supreme Court refused to intercede in a tuition hike challenge in 2007, ruling that courts have no role in determining exactly what that means.
VofReason posted at 12:25 pm on Tue, Mar 6, 2012.
If ASU was really worried about making education available for more people, they would quit building new buildings every year and actually make all professors teach in the classrooms.
VofReason posted at 12:23 pm on Tue, Mar 6, 2012.
Have people pay for their own betterment. Wow, what a bunch of backwards bigots. I mean everyone knows that people are too stupid to do things for themselves or see how working hard and paying your own way turns into success. Why if the Education system doesn't tell us what to do and then give us an education for free (read make someone else pay for it) well we will all just die. Senior citizens of today have to just look and laugh of what their country has turned into. I wonder how much time was given to asking someone else to pay for things for you occured in their early life.
renew21 posted at 10:02 am on Tue, Mar 6, 2012.
Oh we are doomed 6Characters because of obama and (expletive deleted) mindless m o r o n s like yourself.
The bill was a joke. If it is academics they are worried about and having skin in the game, they have to keep up their grades to keep their scholarship. However, they reap what they sow and will be like the worthless rags in the occupy movement like 6character who has no personal responsibility and enslaved by the entitlement society of academia.
Rep. John Kavanagh, more legislation is not the way of the tea party. This goes to show that politicians on both sides want to punish and over regulate our lives no matter what party they are in. Pay and work hard and take some personal responsibility sometimes for your actions.
davidflucier posted at 5:30 am on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
The reason this bill did not survive the legislative process was: 1) it was designed, written and advanced on a totally false set of premises; 2) what the sponsors said it was "suppose" to do contradicted how it was actually written; 3) the consequences of bill were overwhelmingly onerous and had a huge negative impact on those it targeted.
No one "misunderstood" that the amendment to exempt Veterans failed in committee and went forward with a "DO PASS" recommendation WITHOUT the Veterans exemption.
No one "misunderstood" that the bill was going to have a huge negative impact upon those who could least afford tuition to begin with.
No one "misunderstood" how the bill was actually written versus what its sponsors "said" it meant.
No one "misunderstood" the offensive nature of actually excluding Veterans by announcing to the Veterans Community that Veterans "should have more skin in the game".
No one "misunderstood" that this bill was a really bad bill and that it reflected bad public policy from the start.
Administrators, staff, students, parents, Veterans, public policy advocates and all the others involved in this process understood very well from the beginning that this bill was flawed from its inception.
Continuing to make excuses for this bill and accusing people of "misunderstanding" this poorly proposed legislation is also rather offensive and reflective of the continuous, negative attack on education by people who have 'misunderstood" the importance of post secondary education and training.
OldMan posted at 5:42 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012.
Instead of education and intelligence costing more, why don't we make ignorance costly. The sponsors of Jersey Shore, any Kardashian product, and Paris Hilton endorsements should be taxed at a 67% rate.
6Characters posted at 3:50 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012.
What a relief! Thank Science! I'm so glad to see people taking action against these Tea Party insurgents and their (expletive deleted) ideas. Maybe we aren't doomed after all?