- 22 > PLaner OF THE ARTS | NovempBer 1995 eRe wer es Reinventing ECIAD: Part One of a Series To CuT or TO GOUGE? IN SEARCH OF SOLUTIONS FOR UNDERFUNDING BY HARALD GRAVELSINS The odor of tuition increases is hanging in the air. ECIAD faces the prospect of receiving up to $750,000 less for its operating grant in 1996 - 1997. If conventional thinking holds sway, ECIAD students should expect to get hit from two directions: paying more to attend an institution offering them less programming. Crude thinking is quick to come to the fore in response to dire predictions and fore- casts. Usually such thinking proposes expedient strategies without due regard for funda- mental concerns; crudely fash- ioned remedies tend to reconfig- ure the symptoms of a problem without resolving its underlying causes. What workable strategies can be pro- posed at ECIAD as an alternative to inflated tuition fees and diminished pro- gramming? In order to evaluate the role of increasing the price to students of attending ECIAD, we need to put revenue from tuition into the con- text of the school’s overall finances. In 1995 - 1996, tuition payments and studio fees will amount to $2,074,200, or a little less than 21% of the school’s pro- jected operating costs of $9,967,167. Through two levels of government, the taxpayers of British Columbia and Canada help out with an operating grant of close to $7.5 million. The looming financial crunch at ECIAD stems from federal deficit reduction poli- cies which will see massive and ongoing reductions in federal funding for education and health care. The two most simplistic strate- gies to balance ECIAD’s operating expenses against reductions in the school’s annual operating grant are: (1) to increase tuition fees dollar for dollar in relation to decreases in oper- ating grant monies (this is UBC's official policy), and; (2) to reduce the number of stu- dents attending ECIAD along with proportionate reduc- tions in the number of fac- ulty, staff and administra- tors. Simplistic as these strategies are, they seem to have been found compelling by more than a fair share of schools faced with funding problems. What is it about these remedies that has won them approval despite their evident crudeness? How can ECIAD exempt itself from the logic at work in these strate- gies and yet manage to steer itself along with less and less public funding? The logic in both remedies is largely one of free-market eco- nomics and the determination of social outcomes via the purchasing decisions of individual consumers. In the strategy which we can label “Make the Student Pay”, the stu- dent is the consumer who wanted badly enough to attend school and did whatever was necessary to purchase a place there. The seller is under no obligation to recognize anything other than how loudly a potential student’s wallet speaks within the broad framework of contract law. The move to derive a greater proportion of revenue from stu- dents will have the effect of advancing the notions that stu- dents are mere consumers, that education is an ordinary commod- ity, and that competitive monetary transactions give the best shape to educational institutions, including art and design schools. The corol- lary is that subsidies distort con- benchmark rate. Lower taxes bene- fit consumers by putting more money at their disposal with which to purchase commodities. The corollary of the Shrink the Institution strategy is that public spending on economically unpro- ductive institutions, such as public post-secondary art and design schools, is politically or socially corrupt to the extent that the operations of free-market econom- ics are defied as a matter of public policy; this corruption of the free market by public policy establishes privileges and favouritism, and these consequences are at once ineffi- cient and elitist. ECIAD, a bene- ficiary of public policy favouritism and a usurper of tax dollars? The description might seem utterly absurd to anyone whose understanding of ECIAD is defined by concrete experiences of learning and practicing art here. Yet if there is one thing we can no longer afford in the face of an imminent trend toward reductions in govern- ment grants to post-secondary education, it is an attitude of complacency or naiveté in regard to ECIAD’s dependence on external sources of funds. Folk wisdom tells us that the person who pays the piper calls the tune. Presently about four- fifths of the $10,000 approxi- mate annual cost of a full-time ECIAD education is picked up by government. And increasing- ly the tune emanating from the corridors of government res- onates with the logic of eco- nomic efficiency, return on pub- lic investment, lower taxes, and consumer sovereignty. Would students be in a better position to influence the long-term development of ECIAD in these times of cutbacks and restruc- turing if tuition accounted for a larger proportion of the school’s revenue? The next part of this series will begin by taking up this question. “@ sumer decisions, e.g., that govern- ment funding induces demand for places in art and design schools from people whose financial resources would preclude them from admission if the free market were allowed to operate. In the second strategy, which we can label “Shrink the Institution”, the consumer whose interest drives cut backs in school programmes and admissions is the general taxpayer. A publicly- funded institution is consid- ered parasitic unless evi- dence shows that the institution generates a contribution to econom- ic growth that corresponds favourably to the level of public funds invest- ed into it. Moreover, tax rates could be lowered if public funds were reallocated to investments with the greatest financial pay back and if such funds were directed away from institutions whose financial return on the tax- payers’ investment fell below an overall, competitively-determined A GREAT BIG THANK YOU TO ALL THE STUDENT VOLUNTEERS WHO HELPED AT THE ECIAD OPEN HOUSE! S : —Sylvia Fund Raising and Community Relations 22. Pver ore Aus J. Novewasr 1995 Reinventing ECIAD: Part One of a Series To Cur or To Gouce? IN SEARCH OF SOLUTIONS FOR UNDERFUNDING The odor of tuition reases is hanging in the at ECIAD faces the prospect of receiving up (0 $750,000 less for its ‘operating grant in 1996 - 1997. If conventional thinking, holds sway, ECIAD students should expect to get hit from two directions: paying more to attend an institution offering them less programming. ‘Crude thinking is quick to come to the fore in response to dire predictions and fore- cast. Usually such thinking proposes expedient strategies without due regard for funda- ‘mental concerns; crudely fash ioned remedies tend to reconfig- ture the symptoms ofa problem Without resolving its underlying, causes. What workable strategies can be pro- posed at ECIAD, alternative to inflated tuition fees and diminished pro- ‘gramming? In order to evaluate the role of increasing the price to students of attending ECIAD, we need to put revenue from tuition into the con= text of the school’s overall finances. In 1995 - 1996, tution payments and studio fees will amount to $2,074,200, or a litle less than 2196 of the school’s pro- jected operating costs of '$9,967,167. Through two levels of government, the taxpayers of British Columbia and Canada help ‘out with an operating grant of close to $7.5 million. The looming financial crunch at ECIAD stems from federal deficit reduction poli- cies which will see massive and ‘ongoing reductions in federal funding for education and health The two most simplistic state- fies to balance ECIAD's operating expenses against reductions inthe school’s annual operating grant are: (1) to increase tition fees dollar for dollar in relation to decreases in oper= ating grant ‘monies (this uBc’s official policy), and; (2) to reduce the number of stu- dents attending ECIAD along with proportionate reduc- tions in the numberof face uty, staff and administra- tors. Simplistic as these strategies are, they seem to have been found compelling by more than a fair share of schools faced with funding problems. What is it about these remedies that has won them approval despite their evident crudeness? How can ECIAD exempt itself from the logic at work in these strate- ‘ies and yet manage to steer tse along with ess and less public funding? The logic in both remedies is largely one of free-market eco- nomics and the determination of social outcomes via the purchasing decisions of individual consumers. In the strategy which we can label “Make the Student Pay” the stu- dent isthe consumer who wanted badly enough to attend school and did whatever was necessary to purchase a place there. The seller {s under no obligation to recognize anything other than how loudly a potential student's wallet speaks within the broad framework of contract law. ‘The move to derive a greater proportion of revenue from stu- dents will have the effect of advancing the notions that stu dents are mere consumers, that ‘education is an ordinary commod~ fty, and that competitive monetary transactions give the best shape t0 ‘educational institutions, including art and design schools. The orol- Tary is that subsidies distort con- sumer decisions, eg, that govern ‘ment funding induces demand for places in art and design schools from people whose financial resources would preclude them from admission if the free market were allowed to operate In the second strategy, which we can label “Shrink the Institution”, the consumer whose Interest drives cut backs in schoo! programmes and admissions is the general taxpayer. A publily= Funded institution is consid- cred parasitic unless evi- dence shows thatthe institution generates a contribution to benchmark rate. Lower taxes bene- fit consumers by putting more ‘money at their disposal with whieh to purchase commodities. The corollary ofthe Shrink the Institution strategy i that public spending on economically unpro- ductive institutions, such as public post-secondary art and design. schools, i politically oF socially corrupt tothe extent thatthe operations of free-market econom- ies are defied as a mater of public policy this corruption ofthe free ‘market by public policy establishes privileges and favouritism, and these conse are at once ECIAD, a bene ficiay of public policy favouritism and a usurper of tax dollars? ‘The description might seem utterly absurd to anyone whose understanding of ECIAD is defined by concrete experiences of learning and practicing art here. Ye if there is one thing we can no longer afford in the face of an imminent trend toward reductions in govern- ment grants to post-secondary ‘education, itis an attitude of ‘complacency of naiveté in regard to ECIAD's dependence ‘on extemal sources of funds Folk wisdom tells us thatthe person who pays the piper calls the tune. Presently about four- fifths ofthe $10,000 approxi- mate annual cost of afill-time je growth that corresponds favourably to the level of public funds invest- co into it. Moreover, tax rates could be lowered if public funds were reallocated to investments with the greatest financial pay back and if such funds were directed away from institutions whose financial return on the ta payers’ investment fell below an overall, compettively-determined ECIAD education is picked up by government. And inereasing- ly the tune emanating from the corridors of goverment res- ‘onates with the logic of eco nomic efficiency, return on pub- lic investment, lower taxes, and consumer sovereignty. Would students be in a better position to influence the lon development of ECIAD in these times of cutbacks and restruc- turing if tuition accounted for a larger proportion of the school's revenue? The next pat ofthis series will begin by taking up this question. ® A GREAT BIG THANK YOU TO ALL THE STUDENT VOLUNTEERS WHO HELPED AT THE ECIAD OPEN HOUSE! = Sylvia Fund Raising and Community Relations