Several years ago, some well-intentioned individuals, concerned about the level of state support for state universities in Kansas, organized Citizens for Higher Education Inc.

Supposedly influential and effective Kansans were invited to join the organization, and great hope was pinned on them to alert the public to the importance of adequate funding for higher education.

So far, there isn’t much evidence to indicate the group has been successful in its efforts.

Just recently, the organization released a study of the voting records of Kansas House members on bills the CHE thinks are important to higher education. Each representative was given a grade by the CHE, and if this grading and ranking is an indication of this group’s legitimacy, objectivity, helpfulness and understanding of the real political world, it leaves much to be desired.

For example, some lawmakers are given A’s and B’s while 56 legislators received failing grades.

The only trouble is that some of those who received F’s or D’s have done more to promote higher education and support projects that resulted in major benefits for higher education than did some of their fellow legislators who received A’s.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the 2007 legislative session when the Kansas Board of Regents, university chancellors and presidents, members of the CHE and others run to Topeka to ask the true, get-something-done lawmakers who, by the way, got an F or D on the CHE grade card, for help on major higher education matters.

Chances are, those lawmakers would like to tell those with their hands out, “Why ask me for help? I only got an F or D grade. Go ask those who got A’s for their help,” knowing full well that many of those in the A and B category are far better at talking than at delivering meaningful action and results.

The CHE press release included “talking points,” which are supposed to show the miserable state of funding for higher education in Kansas. They include:

¢ Public support for Kansas higher education has fallen below national averages and the Big 12 states since 1990.

¢ State funding for higher education, adjusted for inflation, has dropped every year since 1990 while enrollment today is higher than it has ever been.

¢ State tax revenues per higher ed student are 28 percent below national averages and are the lowest of the Big 12 states.

¢ State appropriations per student at Kansas University and Kansas State University are lower than at any other Big 12 university.

¢ State revenues and appropriations were less for regional universities and community colleges than for similar institutions, except at Washburn, where there is a larger number of graduate professors.

In a category titled “research conclusions,” the report states, “Kansas, once a leader in supporting higher education, has reduced its financial support to the point it is below national averages and nearly the lowest among Big 12 states.”

If all this – the talking points and the conclusions – is true, there is one conclusion that stands out:

Neither the highly touted and much ballyhooed Citizens for Higher Education group, nor the universities, their lobbyists or their chief executives are doing a very good or effective job of telling their story.

It’s a messed-up and dangerous situation that needs major and prompt attention!

One thing is certain: It doesn’t do much good to identify truly effective legislators and give them F’s or D’s on the CHE report card and then expect these lawmakers to be enthusiastic in their legislative help for the universities.

What grade should be given to the CHE and its powerful group of board members for their effectiveness in telling the story and sharing the needs of higher education?