Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technical College Operating Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials tell budget committee removing tech‑college operating grant would slow workforce pipeline
Summary
WSU Tech and Kansas Board of Regents officials told the Committee on Higher Education Budget that restoring a $10.5 million technical‑college operating grant is critical to maintain program capacity, retain faculty and meet employer demand; KBOR and presenters reviewed how two‑year funding streams work and how dual‑credit growth affects enrollments.
Doctor Flanders, president and CEO of the Kansas Board of Regents, and Sherry Utash, president of WSU Tech, briefed the Committee on Higher Education Budget on funding for two‑year colleges and warned that a proposed budget omission could cut capacity at technical colleges.
Utash said the technical colleges produce high placement rates and workforce returns: “We have $6.09 plus million in increased earnings from our alumni across the state of Kansas. We also have an 87 to 92% job placement rate of completers, and 81% of our graduates remain and work in Kansas.” She told the committee that three funding streams that have supported technical colleges for the last three years—the technical college operating grant, business and industry apprenticeship funding and student success funding—are absent from the current budget and asked the legislature to restore the technical college operating grant to $10,500,000 for the seven technical colleges.
Utash warned about the consequences of removing operating support: “Eliminating it now reverses a policy decision that was validated through outcomes and at a time when employers are telling us that they need more skilled workers, not fewer?” She said the operating grant has allowed the colleges to hire and retain faculty, buy specialized equipment, expand lab sections and turn facility investments into graduates; without it, colleges would have to limit enrollment or delay employer‑requested expansions.
Dr. Flanders outlined the state funding structure that flows through KBOR to two‑year institutions and reiterated the structural differences between community colleges and technical colleges: community colleges have local taxing authority and elected boards, while technical colleges typically have appointed boards and no local mill levy. He described major state line items for two‑year colleges, including a non‑tiered course credit hour grant ($88,000,000), post‑secondary tiered technical education aid ($66,000,000), and Excel and CTE funding ($47,000,000).
Flanders and Utash both emphasized the link between funding and workforce capacity. Flanders noted large growth in dual‑credit delivery to high‑school students through Excel and CTE (from roughly 3,000–3,500 to over 15,000) and said those enrollments are counted in credit totals. Representative questions during the hearing focused on whether SB155 and dual‑credit programs have ‘‘cannibalized’’ community college enrollment; Flanders said Senate Bill 155 does not remove enrollment from counts because dual‑credit students receive college credit that is counted.
The committee asked KBOR for additional data, including lists of circumstances where students are served outside a college’s taxing district and counts associated with those situations. KBOR said it will return to the committee for follow‑up hearings. The committee adjourned without taking formal action on the operating grant request during the session.
The presentation materials cited by presenters included KBOR slides and referenced existing statutory programs (Senate Bill 155, Senate Bill 143, the Kansas Nursing Initiative and the Campus Restoration Act).
