Independent colleges warn committee that proposed Sellinger cuts would harm Maryland access and workforce pipelines
February 23, 2024 | Education, Business and Administration Subcommittee, Budget and Taxation Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A coalition of presidents representing Maryland’s independent colleges urged the Education, Business and Administration Subcommittee to reject the governor’s proposed recalculation of the Sellinger formula, saying it would sharply reduce state support for institutions that deliver outsized degree production and workforce outcomes.
Matt Power, speaking for the Maryland State Independent College and University Association, asked the panel to run the Sellinger formula consistent with its original intent and proposed a voluntary, measured reduction that would spread savings fairly across institutions. Multiple presidents described Sellinger as efficient state support that helps retain Maryland students and produces a strong return on investment for limited state dollars.
Elliot Hirschman of Stevenson University said Sellinger represented a small share of total higher education spending but a large share of degree production from independent institutions. Mary Lou Yam of Notre Dame of Maryland University told senators the BRFAA recalculation would yield a 46% reduction for her campus — the third‑largest cut estimated among private institutions — and warned the loss would likely force cuts to need‑based aid, layoffs, or program reductions.
Tim Trainor of Mount Saint Mary’s, Brad Simms of Capital Technology University, and Maria Tilden of Johns Hopkins each stressed Sellinger’s role in supporting Maryland students, workforce pipelines and local economies. Hopkins officials said roughly 90% of their Sellinger allocation is used directly for Maryland student aid, and other presidents highlighted high graduation and economic mobility metrics for independent colleges.
Senators acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling a tight state budget with competing priorities. The chair said the committee was “wrestling” with Sellinger funding and would aim to restore as much as feasible, but gave no commitments during the hearing.
The subcommittee did not record any formal votes on Sellinger during the session; members asked DLS and MHEC to clarify funding implications and the methodology used for FTES calculations that will affect allocations.
Matt Power, speaking for the Maryland State Independent College and University Association, asked the panel to run the Sellinger formula consistent with its original intent and proposed a voluntary, measured reduction that would spread savings fairly across institutions. Multiple presidents described Sellinger as efficient state support that helps retain Maryland students and produces a strong return on investment for limited state dollars.
Elliot Hirschman of Stevenson University said Sellinger represented a small share of total higher education spending but a large share of degree production from independent institutions. Mary Lou Yam of Notre Dame of Maryland University told senators the BRFAA recalculation would yield a 46% reduction for her campus — the third‑largest cut estimated among private institutions — and warned the loss would likely force cuts to need‑based aid, layoffs, or program reductions.
Tim Trainor of Mount Saint Mary’s, Brad Simms of Capital Technology University, and Maria Tilden of Johns Hopkins each stressed Sellinger’s role in supporting Maryland students, workforce pipelines and local economies. Hopkins officials said roughly 90% of their Sellinger allocation is used directly for Maryland student aid, and other presidents highlighted high graduation and economic mobility metrics for independent colleges.
Senators acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling a tight state budget with competing priorities. The chair said the committee was “wrestling” with Sellinger funding and would aim to restore as much as feasible, but gave no commitments during the hearing.
The subcommittee did not record any formal votes on Sellinger during the session; members asked DLS and MHEC to clarify funding implications and the methodology used for FTES calculations that will affect allocations.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
