There are four reasons why a “pro-rated, per-student” Fee-for-Service component should not be made part of the costs to students associated with standard-rate tuition:

(1)    By design, FFS funding provides operating support to institutions, not students, for the provision of role-and-mission-related programs and activities addressing state needs. In statute, these include such things as educational services in rural areas, reciprocal agreements, graduate school services, economic development-related activities, and professional degrees and programs (e.g. dentistry, medicine, law, forestry, etc).  In the JBC hearings on the budget this year, several legislators made the point that proposed cuts to higher education should come from FFS rather than stipends because stipends represent support for students, while FFS represents support for institutions.

(2)    In practice, FFS funding has become a revenue stabilization mechanism, or balancing tool, to hold institutional funding levels as stable as possible and to support institutional operations.  It is not tied to individual student enrollments. The operations supported by FFS would exist whether students covered under the ASSET bill were enrolled or not, and funding would not change as a result of the bill’s passage.

(3)    FFS funding is neither calculated nor distributed based on per-student enrollments.  As such, there is no such thing as a “per-student, pro-rated share” of FFS funding.  In fact, such a concept is completely contrary to the original intent and continuing practice of FFS. While one can produce some hypothetical number by dividing an institution’s FFS allocation by some measure of student FTE or headcount, that fact alone does not make the number a meaningful, useful, or relevant figure.

(4)     Creating a concept such as a “pro-rated, per-student share” of FFS in this bill fundamentally redefines a key component of higher education financing in our state.  It sets a dangerous precedent  and opens the door to additional cost-shifting of FFS costs  to other students in the future — that is, resident students could conceivably be charged a share of FFS, as well, to make up for diminishing state support. Such a fundamental re-conceptualization of a significant higher education funding stream should not be part of this bill.

from KDVR Channel 13
DENVER — The controversial measure to offer a reduced rate of college tuition for undocumented students who live in Colorado is finally out of the senate and in Speaker Frank McNulty’s hands.

GOP silent as Colorado Senate passes immigrant tuition bill

Colorado Senate Passes ASSET Bill: Senate Bill 15 Would Give Undocumented …

In-state tuition a boon for all in Colorado – Don Gordon, Durango

CO. ASSET provides hope to innocent immigrant kids - Colorado Statesman

Support Colorado ASSET Bill to provide access to education - Nicole Mosher, Durango

Commentary: ASSET bill is morally, fiscally sound - Moira Cullen, Denver

Senate Bill 15, the so-called ASSET bill sponsored by Democrats Angela Giron and Mike Johnston, is the latest version of a bill introduced six times over the last few years. It establishes what the sponsors are calling a “standard rate” tuition several …

CU supports lower tuition for undocumented students

By Lucas Hampton

The CU Board of Regents voted Feb. 1 to support Senate Bill 15, a bill that would create a third tuition rate for undocumented students who attend high school in Colorado.

As it stands, tuition rates are either in-state or out-of-state, but if this bill passes, there would be a third level of tuition rates for undocumented students called the “standard rate.”

The CU Board of Regents consists of nine members – five republicans and four democrats. The decision to support the bill came down to the last vote, with Republican Tillman Bishop tipping the scale as he sided with the democrats to pass the bill.

Kyle Hybl, the representative of the 5th Congressional District, including Colorado Springs, voted not to support the bill.

Colorado Senate Bill 15 “requires an institution of higher education to classify a student [pending certain qualifications] as a standard-rate student.” The standard rate is approximately 20 percent higher than in-state tuition and 60 percent lower than out-of-state tuition.

A student may qualify for standard-rate tuition so long as the student has completed the last three years of high school education in Colorado and received a diploma or GED.

The student must also provide the university with information stating that they are in the process of obtaining legal citizenship, and the student is not eligible for federal financial aid.

The implications of such a bill go beyond the ethics of it, for whether morally opposed to the bill or not, it is predicted to be a significant source of revenue for universities.

UCCS graduating senior Melody Klema agreed with the Regents, expressing that undocumented students are not going anywhere; “most have lived here their entire lives…and they are going to need a degree to find a good job.”

She added that, “as a country, we should want more people that are living here to go to college,” and furthermore, they are contributing more to society, “through going to college than staying at home living with remedial jobs.”

Colorado Senate Bill 15 has passed through two sessions of the senate with just one remaining before it moves on to the house; this last session is scheduled for Feb. 20.

The state Senate’s Education Committee met to discuss Senate Bill 126, which would allow illegal immigrants who attend at least three years of high school in Colorado to pay the in-state tuition rate if they go to college