PASSHE Institutions Merging

[Bart]

I get the impression most people think these schools are all in danger of failing. In some cases the merger is a matter of geography or else any of the other sisters could have been dragged into this mess. How the hell did Slippery Rock get out from under the thumb?

[ironmaniup]

The job loss sucks. It's terrible.

That said, the path to stopping this is the BOG voting it down or the gov putting pressure on them to stop it. It was obvious this whole time that there would have to be job loss for cost savings. Passhe is painting it as retirements will help offset layoffs. I don't see job losses as swaying the BOG or gov. Passhe employees are considered overpaid by some, and outside of the impacted communities...most Pennsylvanians don't care. People are desensitized to layoffs.

I think a more compelling case against this would be to go through the reports and challenge the numbers. Like oh all the sudden enrollment grows? Once those numbers aren't inflated, just staying the course and using sustainability plans look better. Also use what happened in Georgia.

And, look at the initial costs of this integration. Would that money be better spent paying down debt?, but for all practical purposes

My 2 cents. I'm far from someone who engages in campaigns like this. But, to sway people, you need to use facts important to them.

That said, I think the board is mesmerized by Greenstein and his confidence in this...so I doubt they vote it down.

I'm convinced that there was no other path considered other than significant staff reductions, Greenstein's job was to come up with a way to do that that didn't look quite as harsh. At IUP I'd guess that retirements reduced the projected layoffs by about half. How it works in the future depends on future enrollments. Whether the merged cshools have that much buffer with older faculty , I don't know.

In the end they could have gone with pay cuts, more creative financing of the overbuilt Dorms, including state funding/backstops, etc, more state funding for students attending the PASSHE but there really is not the will to fix it in a sustainable way. There is a never ending supply of academics that think they can fix such problems with rearranging the deck chairs, and enjoy immensely the meetings and planning that goes with such rearrangements. By merging though, they can greatly reduce some schools without "closing" them but of course for all practical purposes, the schools exists in name only .

[Horror Child]

Its a bit 11th hour, but there are some really compelling reports being shared on the Twitter right now. To make this plan work, every campus is going to cut costs (shed jobs). The job elimination plans at four schools will be the largest mass layoff in their respective county within the last decade. I know universities aren't there to keep people employed but there are only negative ripple effects when you remove good paying jobs from rural communities.

Thank goodness you said that, because this guy's post from several months ago made PASSHE practically sound like a jobs program.

Something I noticed that's important to note about those who think closing campuses is a good idea - these schools aren't just predominantly in rural areas, they're also in low earning communities who don't just need geographic access to post-secondary education but the schools are a major socioeconomic pillar.

When we close a physical campus, we create a geographic desert. The majority of students commute to nearly all PASSHE schools. If Clarion closes, residents have to drive 41 minutes to Penn State DuBois, 55 minutes to Slippery Rock, or 76 minutes to IUP. The local economies generally don't produce earners that can afford the cost of such daily commutes. Those hours driving also cut into the notion that one can/should "work their way through school."

But people can just attend online, right? Rural PA has a high speed internet problem, something required for online education. In Edinboro, PA, the local school district had to install wifi hubs to the perimeter of its schools so parents could drive up and get their kids internet access. In 2020, the state is still building cell phone towers so state police radios will work. No cell service most likely means no high speed internet access.

Economics and tax revenue is why these schools were converted to comprehensive schools. More education has a direct correlation to higher incomes - and thus more tax revenue. This is even more important as PA loses population. These schools aren't just economic engines, they're also economic pillars of their communities and counties. These schools also provide many good jobs (above average pay, excellent benefits) for workers without a degree. The most important benefits for this group are low cost health insurance, strong retirement plans, and tuition remission. In Chester County, the two PASSHE campuses together are the #14 employer. But most of these schools are in counties where people struggle. Half of the PASSHE schools are located in counties with a median household income below the state average. That includes Indiana. Of the six schools up for "integration", all six are located in these counties.

Bloomsburg (Columbia): #2
Lock Haven (Clinton): #4
Mansfield (Tioga): #4

California (Washington): #9
Clarion (Clarion): #1
Edinboro (Erie): #24

[Horror Child]

The job loss sucks. It's terrible.

That said, the path to stopping this is the BOG voting it down or the gov putting pressure on them to stop it. It was obvious this whole time that there would have to be job loss for cost savings. Passhe is painting it as retirements will help offset layoffs. I don't see job losses as swaying the BOG or gov. Passhe employees are considered overpaid by some, and outside of the impacted communities...most Pennsylvanians don't care. People are desensitized to layoffs.

I think a more compelling case against this would be to go through the reports and challenge the numbers. Like oh all the sudden enrollment grows? Once those numbers aren't inflated, just staying the course and using sustainability plans look better. Also use what happened in Georgia.

And, look at the initial costs of this integration. Would that money be better spent paying down debt?

My 2 cents. I'm far from someone who engages in campaigns like this. But, to sway people, you need to use facts important to them.

That said, I think the board is mesmerized by Greenstein and his confidence in this...so I doubt they vote it down.

Including the ones that shows PA is 47th in funding?

And most people are desensitized to layoffs since most people are susceptible to them, save teachers and PASSHE.

[Horror Child]

LOL ironically one of the suggestions for academic growth is the creation of a cannabis science certificate.

But yes, the 6 schools in question have nearly $470 million in construction debt. Mansfield owes the system $7 million in operational debt.

Divided by ~14 million people living in the state of PA = $0.50 for every man, woman, or child in the state. That's in a year. Shame on the state legislature.

[complaint_hopeful]

Its a bit 11th hour, but there are some really compelling reports being shared on the Twitter right now. To make this plan work, every campus is going to cut costs (shed jobs). The job elimination plans at four schools will be the largest mass layoff in their respective county within the last decade. I know universities aren't there to keep people employed but there are only negative ripple effects when you remove good paying jobs from rural communities.

The job loss sucks. It's terrible.

That said, the path to stopping this is the BOG voting it down or the gov putting pressure on them to stop it. It was obvious this whole time that there would have to be job loss for cost savings. Passhe is painting it as retirements will help offset layoffs. I don't see job losses as swaying the BOG or gov. Passhe employees are considered overpaid by some, and outside of the impacted communities...most Pennsylvanians don't care. People are desensitized to layoffs.

I think a more compelling case against this would be to go through the reports and challenge the numbers. Like oh all the sudden enrollment grows? Once those numbers aren't inflated, just staying the course and using sustainability plans look better. Also use what happened in Georgia.

And, look at the initial costs of this integration. Would that money be better spent paying down debt?

My 2 cents. I'm far from someone who engages in campaigns like this. But, to sway people, you need to use facts important to them.

That said, I think the board is mesmerized by Greenstein and his confidence in this...so I doubt they vote it down.

[Fightingscot82]

Its a bit 11th hour, but there are some really compelling reports being shared on the Twitter right now. To make this plan work, every campus is going to cut costs (shed jobs). The job elimination plans at four schools will be the largest mass layoff in their respective county within the last decade. I know universities aren't there to keep people employed but there are only negative ripple effects when you remove good paying jobs from rural communities.

[iupgroundhog]

LOL ironically one of the suggestions for academic growth is the creation of a cannabis science certificate.

But yes, the 6 schools in question have nearly $470 million in construction debt. Mansfield owes the system $7 million in operational debt.

I think it's a sunk cost. Repayment of the debt has to be done regardless of whether the school exists or not.

If the school continues to lose money operationally the debt shouldn't be a factor.

Debt isn't a factor in the decision to close or not close.

[complaint_hopeful]

This kind of reminds me of how some of these schools bring in enrollment management consultants. They pay them a decent amount. They forecast like x growth over the next 3 years...and come up with a plan. And we see that these schools enrollment is still declining.

Now would it have declined worse? Who knows?

In these Triads, with these wildly optimistic numbers and projections, they're still barely making it. <-- That's a huge red flag. What happens if these schools like 10-15% enrollment year 1 because of this drastic change?

[complaint_hopeful]

Yep. They've spent a lot of time with PR and superficial things...ie Talking about how amazing this plan is for months and months.

But, when you start to dig through the numbers...there are lots of questions. Also, when you start to dig into the implementation and timeframe, there are some major gaps.

Now IF they pushed the timeframe back another year for when this thing went live, I'd feel much better about it all. There seems to be no appreciation for the amount of work that needs done. They just arbitrarily set a date.

For a real project, you'd work it in reverse. You'd calculate the work timeframe and set a date that is realistic.

What I don't know is what is reported to the Chancellor. I've witnessed group meetings and focus groups with him over the years and the people in those meetings are wildly optimistic about things. Like however they select these people, they don't select the campus complainers. So if morale is low on campus, he doesn't see it. He gets the optimistic view and people are hesitant to be negative and complain. So for all we know, the people he talks to might be feeding him lines that this is amazing, then go back to their campuses and complain. <-- A lot of that goes on. People tailor what they say to the audience and tell them what they want to hear. That can happen in this as people think they're fighting for jobs.

[Fightingscot82]

Exactly.

The math doesn't line up. But Chancellor Wonk is significantly increasing his appearance on podcasts and media interviews.

[complaint_hopeful]

I agree and I said this during my time on the little charade of a focus group with the marketing agency. The *only* thing that give these schools market competiveness is geography and cost. Geography isn't changing so the only way to improve is to make them cheaper to attend. Problem is that its like running a hospital: if you cut doctors, you also decrease billable procedures. You can't reduce costs without it affecting revenue. The easiest (and certainly not easy) way to do this is with an infusion of state funding. Restore the funding levels to pre-Great Recession levels since enrollment is now there in exchange for holding the line on tuition.

Yep. As far as cost...so there is a goal to reduce cost to educate or some similar wording by 25%. So people initially saw that and was like - It's going to cost 25% less for students! Well I think I saw in the plan that they're forecasting 1% cost increases too.

So they want to lower costs by 25% and charge 1% more. That's going to be hard to do. Really hard to do.

There was something interesting in the West report about like 73% of students taking classes in one of 6 programs. I thought that was interesting. (Going off the top of my head here so numbers might be slightly off.)

So to recap, they want to :
1 ) Create a new entitiy with no branding history. Yet, also preserve the old identity. (Seemingly conflicting goals.) Like will email address domains stay the same? 1 website or 3? You have to pick a lane on this stuff.
2 ) Reduce costs by 25%
3 ) Increase tuition by 1%
4 ) Take 3 schools that have traditionally lost enrollment for nearly a decade - semester over semester...and immediately make it grow by 1%.
5 ) They claim employee losses will mainly be attrition from retirements, so presumably the people in positions that aren't needed will retire so they don't have to rehire it. (I joke...because what happens is people leave, some in positions that are needed...and they don't rehire them.)

[Fightingscot82]

Interestingly, I see they forecast 1% growth a year for students. So schools losing enrollment independently each year will combine and start growing immediately? That seems a bit overly optimistic.

I would anticipate they'll lose enrollment initially. Then, maybe they do gain.

I agree and I said this during my time on the little charade of a focus group with the marketing agency. The *only* thing that give these schools market competiveness is geography and cost. Geography isn't changing so the only way to improve is to make them cheaper to attend. Problem is that its like running a hospital: if you cut doctors, you also decrease billable procedures. You can't reduce costs without it affecting revenue. The easiest (and certainly not easy) way to do this is with an infusion of state funding. Restore the funding levels to pre-Great Recession levels since enrollment is now there in exchange for holding the line on tuition.

[complaint_hopeful]

LOL ironically one of the suggestions for academic growth is the creation of a cannabis science certificate.

But yes, the 6 schools in question have nearly $470 million in construction debt. Mansfield owes the system $7 million in operational debt.

Their subliminal advertising campaign has been VERY effective. I didn't even realized it worked on me until I typed that.

I'd be interested in knowing what it would cost to close these schools IF they didn't have all that bond debt? Would seem the cost would be fairly low. Like $10-20 million? At that point, it might be less than the cross subsidy burden.

[complaint_hopeful]

Interestingly, I see they forecast 1% growth a year for students. So schools losing enrollment independently each year will combine and start growing immediately? That seems a bit overly optimistic.

I would anticipate they'll lose enrollment initially. Then, maybe they do gain.