Global Strategies

“Race to the Top” draft missing two big trends

Now I’m really worried. Close to 100 Oregon educational leaders, know as the Race to the Top Design Team and Working Groups, have meet intensively for six weeks to develop the “Recommendations Draft/ Oregon RTTP Design Team” (11/9/09, here). The focus of the federal grants is to get underperforming schools and students to do better. I agree we must do that, but simultaneously we must improve foreign language programs so our students can compete in a global economy and we must utilize technology, mainly online capacities, to cut costs and improve learning. Neither improving foreign language programs nor increasing online education is mentioned in the draft. These are not small oversights.

So, what can one say about these 100 educational leaders? That they do not understand the global economy, the rise of China and the explosive economic growth of emerging markets?  That they just have not connected these global trends to Oregon’s educational system?  That they do not recognized the cost saving potential of online education? That the politics of Oregon’s educational system make any significance change, however much needed, impossible? So impossible that need changes are not mentioned, proposed or discussed.

If this is the best our K-12 educational leaders can do, we are in deep trouble. They are missing two big trends that are reshaping the world and education.

I did email the members of the Design Team on 8/2/09 urging them to invigorate foreign language programs in Oregon. Nothing that I emailed them is reflected in this latest draft.

This is the recommendation part of what I emailed the Design Team in August:

(1) Create a Go Global High School Study Abroad Program: Permit the state and local school districts to pay for high school students to study abroad through existing programs like AFS and ASSE. HB 2719 in the 2009 session was an initial effort to create the legal and administrative structure for such a program. Requires no additional federal, state or local funds to implement. No other state has this program.

(2) Expand the number of immersion language programs that begin in kindergarten. Emphasize Mandarin.

(3) Expand online, correspondence and software based (like Rosetta Stone) foreign language learning (and crediting) opportunities for Oregon students. Especially for students in small districts without foreign language programs. And especially, even in large districts, for minor languages like Urdu, Pashto, Korean, Indonesian, Arabic, etc.

(3) Expand high school Mandarin offering.

(4) Create scholarships for summer study in China for high school students. Let me suggest piloting two demonstration projects: (a) A three-week, Confucius Center program: PSU’s Confucius Center provides three summer weeks of language study in China for high school students paid for by the Chinese government. Students live together in hotels. Students now have to pay for international travel. Unlimited number of students can go. State should pay for international travel to maximize program use. (b) A four weeks or more, live with a family immersion program: There are existing intensive language schools in China offering homestays with Chinese families. Summer programs for high school students should be created and funded.

(5) Expand high school heritage language class opportunities for native speakers (spoken in home or as an immigrant) of foreign languages, especially Mandarin.

Again, none of this is reflected in the current draft Race to the Top Proposal. Please make it better!

 

 

 

More dithering, please!

President Obama, please continue dithering on Afghanistan.

Politics, even international politics, it seems to me, is a process of dithering. We are not going to prevail in Afghanistan by military force alone. Counterinsurgency forces can only create opportunities for internal, regional, and global politics, that is for more dithering, to create a stable, well-governed nation state in Afghanistan. The idea that Obama needs to make some big decision on Afghanistan is preposterous. That falls into the trap of thinking Afghanistan is only a military campaign that we can win. It’s not.

The NY Times article “All Afghan War Options by Obama Aides Said To Call for More Troops” by Peter Baker and Helene Cooper reports (here):

Advisers to President Obama are preparing three options for escalating the war effort in Afghanistan, all of them calling for more American troops, as he moves closer to a decision on the way forward in the eight-year-old war, officials said Saturday.

The options include Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for roughly another 40,000 troops; a middle scenario sending about 30,000 more troops; and a lower alternative involving 20,000 to 25,000 reinforcements, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

I’d rather phase back still more than Obama is likely to do, but even 40,000 more US troops just gets us more dithering. Counterinsurgency doctrine would call for 600,000 – 800,000 troops. Even with the ongoing training of Afghan troops we are not going to get there soon.

Further, trying to create a stable, well-run nation state in Afghanistan is not high on my list of global strategic priorities for the US. We need to shift the burden of nation state development in Afghanistan to others. Lots of dithering is in order to accomplish this.

Consider Stephen Walt’s blog post “To Encourage the Others” (here):

One of the many dubious arguments now being invoked to justify an open-ended U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is the idea that withdrawal will damage U.S. credibility and cause other U.S. clients to doubt our staying power. It's possible that getting out would cause a few weak and vulnerable leaders to reconsider their reliance on the United States, but is that necessarily a bad thing? The United States has been obsessed with maintaining "credibility" for decades, but we tend to forget that our credibility is more our clients' problem than it is ours. That's one of the nice things about being a superpower: even when our interests are partly tied up with the fates of others, most U.S. allies need our support a lot more than we need theirs.

In the case of Afghanistan, we are fighting on behalf of a corrupt and ineffective government that has resisted repeated calls for reform. If we were to stop throwing resources at it and it subsequently collapsed, we would be sending a powerful signal to other U.S. clients around the world. The message? Don't expect Uncle Sucker to back you forever if you can't or won’t shape up. Among other things, it might have a salutary effect on the government of Pakistan, and relieve us of the burden of constantly meddling in their affairs, which only makes us less popular there. (On that front, I'm beginning to think someone ought to filch Richard Holbrooke's passport; the more he visits the region, the more the Pakistani people seem to hate us). 

Instead of signaling a loss of American will, getting out of Afghanistan would remind other governments that the United States is not a philanthropic organization. Americans are willing to support competent and effective leaders whose interests are compatible with ours, but we are not in the business of endlessly subsidizing incompetence. In other words, we would telling friends and foes that we back winners, and we aren't inclined to waste resources on losers. So if you want our help, get your act together.  What's wrong with sending that message?

And consider Matthew Yglesias’ blog post “Hard to Get” (here)

Something the United States seem to have lost site of, is that alliance with and assistance from the country with the biggest economy and the largest military on the planet is a valuable thing to have. This is especially true because since we’re geographically isolated up here in North America and also a friendly democracy with a somewhat robust commitment to human rights, most countries and organizations are going to see us as a more desirable partner than whatever the locally available alternative is. This is something that ought to be turned to our advantage. Pretty much everyone needs us more than we need them, which ought to give us all the leverage.

But a hawkish disposition and an obsession with toughness tend to erode our ability to play hard to get. For example, consider the widespread ideas that we’re fighting a “necessary” war in Afghanistan and that the cooperation of Hamid Karzai is vital to our success in that war. These two ideas, when put in combination, lead to the slightly absurd conclusion that securing the cooperation of Hamid Karzai is necessary for the national security of the most powerful country on earth. In the real world, it should be the other way around. We have interests in Afghanistan that it would be nice to successfully pursue. But Karzai’s interests are much more fundamental than ours. What’s necessary—or at least closer to necessary—is for him to secure our cooperation by acting in a way that’s helpful. And it’s the same for Poland and Georgia and all the rest. Relationships with friendly clients are nice to have, but the wise superpower should know how to play hard to get.

Economist Brad DeLong at Reed College

Berkeley’s Professor of Economics Brad DeLong spoke at Reed College (11/7/09). I attended. This was a treat for me. I am a regular reader of his blog (here). He is a Democrat with distinctly liberal views.He's also a first rate public intellectual.

The title of his Reed presentation was “Financial Crisis and the Macroeconomy, 1825 – Present.” The slides used in the presentation are posted on his blog site (here).

Just a few comments:

(1)   I really enjoy his sense of humor and wit.

(2)   Check out his first slide “The Employment-to-Population Ratio is in Free Fall.” It gives him nightmares.

(3)   I wondered why he started at 1825. It was the first industrial era financial crisis in which the failure of financial institutions could have caused massive unemployment. The Bank of England bailed out the first “too big to fail” private firm.

(4)   DeLong thinks more stimulus is needed. He would have created the initial stimulus in two parts, with the second part set to trigger-in now if unemployment was over 10%.

(5)   DeLong thinks China will continue to finance US debt. He noted he has a Berkeley colleague who has been predicting China would stop for eight years.

(6)   DeLong suggested $50 billion capitalization as the maximum size a financial firm should have, but stressed the difficulties of getting any such legislation through the US political system.

DeLong, several years ago, blogged the strongest reason for developing more Mandarin and study abroad programs in China. I’ll take this as an opportunity to reposted it. From DeLong:

Think of it this way: Consider a world that contains one country that is a true superpower. It is preeminent--economically, technologically, politically, culturally, and militarily. But it lies at the east edge of a vast ocean. And across the ocean is another country--a country with more resources in the long-run, a country that looks likely to in the end supplant the current superpower. What should the superpower's long-run national security strategy be?

I think the answer is clear: if possible, the current superpower should embrace its possible successor. It should bind it as closely as possible with ties of blood, commerce, and culture--so that should the emerging superpower come to its full strength, it will to as great an extent possible share the world view of and regard itself as part of the same civilization as its predecessor: Romans to their Greeks.

In 1877, the rising superpower to the west across the ocean was the United States. The preeminent superpower was Britain. Today the preeminent superpower is the United States. The rising superpower to the west across the ocean from the world's industrial and military leader is China.

Throughout the twentieth century it has been greatly to Britain's economic benefit that America has regarded it as a trading partner--a source of opportunities--rather than a politico-military-industrial competitor to be isolated and squashed. And in 1917 and again in 1941 it was to Britain's immeasurable benefit--its very soul was on the line--that America regarded it as a friend and an ally rather than as a competitor and an enemy. A world run by those whom de Gaulle called les Anglo-Saxons is a much more comfortable world for Britain than the other possibility--the world in which Europe were run by Adolf Hitler's Saxon-Saxons.

There is a good chance that China is now on the same path to world preeminence that America walked 130 years ago. Come 2047 and again in 2071 and in the years after 2075, America is going to need China. There is nothing more dangerous for America's future national security, nothing more destructive to America's future prosperity, than for Chinese schoolchildren to be taught in 2047 and 2071 and in the years after 2075 that America tried to keep the Chinese as poor as possible for as long as possible.

 

Gas @ $6: Fewer, smaller cars, less driving

This is my second installment post on “$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better” (here) by Christopher Steiner. These quotes are from his “Chapter $6: Society Change and the Dead SUV.” I think all these changes are plausible, if not likely, as the price of gas goes up.

Burying the SUV:

Six-dollar gas, though its specter may sound implausible, isn’t too far away, says Jeffrey Rubin, a respected economist and chief strategist and managing director of CIBC world market. Rubin says gasoline will likely cost $7 a gallon by 2010. As a result, he says, “Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highway in history. By 2012, there should be some 100 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today – a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments including those during the two OPEC oil shocks.”

No realm of our lives will be affected faster, and no corner of big business will be rocked harder, than that of the vehicles we drive. Of those 10 million vehicles that Rubin predicts will come off U.S. roads, many will be SUVs. In fact, if you examine things with an eye toward a kind of natural selection of automobiles in a world of $6 gas, it’s pragmatic and reasonable to expect that most of the vehicles coming off the road will be the guzzlers, the SUVs, the nonessential pickup trucks, the low-end sports cars. Those are the cars people won’t want.

Embracing diesel:

Diesel engines, long ignored and often maligned in North America will begin to settle in at the American table when gas goes to $6. Ford has a car for sale in Europe right now that gets 65 miles per gallon.

Less auto accident deaths:

Harvard and the University of Alabama determined that for every 10% gas price increase, there’s a resulting 2.3% in the number of driving deaths nationwide. This means a shift from $4 gas to $6 gas would save 4,000 lives. That’s a third more people than America lost in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center

A physically skinnier America:

A $1 rise in gas means 11,000 fewer lives lost to obesity-related causes and $11 billion per year saved on health costs.

 Cleaner air:

More important than the improved sharpness of our mountain views, however, will be the multiple thousands of lives saved by fewer particles invading our air.

Era of widespread tolling:

Schofer believes that the likelier solution will be some kind of usage tax on our major roads, similar to a toll, but widespread and sliding, so that rush-hour drivers get dinged for more.

 Less school busing:

It could be that, for at least a time – until technology brings us cheaper-running busses, and it will – many school districts across the country will abandon busing except in the most rural of cases.

Less youth sports traveling:

States will implement changes that will mean more than merely few multiday tournaments and trips to play elite teams from other states. The changes will alter how states conduct playoff tournaments and, in some cases, will even skew competition, sectionals, and playoffs unfairly.

 Return of police foot patrol:

Americans may be seeing fewer police cars, but they’re not seeing less police protection. Police have taken to the sidewalks one again, much like they did a century ago on America’s tight and dense city avenues.

 

Oregon School Boards Association fails global awareness

The Oregon School Boards Association has not gotten the message that the world is changing. Or they are in a denial stage. China’s economy will be twice as big as the US economy (with a military to match) in the prime years of the students they are educating today. That’s not on their agenda. Eighty percent of global economic growth in the decades ahead will be in emerging markets. That’s not on their agenda either. One wonders if they even think about the world they are educating our students for and how different it will be.

Why do I say this? Because the Oregon School Boards Association is holding its 63^rd annual convention November 12-15 in Portland, and, of the 58 workshops scheduled, not one is about the rise of China, the changing global economy, the need to invigorate foreign language programs (especially Mandarin), nor the need to create a Go Global High School Study Abroad Program. They seem to be living in an educational echo chamber that does not let real life in. Just take a look at their schedule (here).

 To their credit, they do have one workshop on “Online education: policy and practice.” That’s one out of fifty-eight workshops on a topic that, IMHO, could save them lots of money on serving some students that they could reallocate to others. If they would only pursue online education aggressively.

Unless the Oregon School Boards Association ups its game, Oregon students will be left in the dust of the global economy.

Maybe next year.

 

2011 High School Year in Brazil for $5,230

Brazil is one of those BRIC emerging economies that is reshaping the global economy and reshuffling global geopolitics. Give your child, or grandchild (or more students in Oregon as a strategic economic development priority), the opportunity to learn their language, Portuguese, and to get to know their country, culture and market.

ASSE (American Scandinavian Student Exchange, here) offers a high school year study abroad in Brazil for $5,230. Program fee includes international airfare, comprehensive health, accidental death and travel insurance, host family recruitment and screening, non-English speaking country language training and orientation. Program fee does not include air travel to Miami, passport and visa fees, school uniforms (if required), educational/recreational overnight field trips, school lunch money (if necessary), and pocket money.

Host families do not receive fees or reimbursements for expenses. They will provide meals and lodging; all they ask in return is that the students participate as a responsible member of the family, assuming her/his fair share of chores around the house and sharing in family activities.

ASSE maintains 38 offices in 31 countries and accommodates more than 30,000 high school age students and host families annually in its programs in the participating countries.

The $5,230 fee is for an early application by May 15, 2010. The Brazil high school year program starts January, 2011.

The 2009 Oregon legislature did not pass the Go Global High School Study Abroad Program so students and families must fund study abroad on their own. ASSE does provide some scholarships.

Oregon’s State School Fund pays local school districts on average about $6,100 per student per year. Local school districts all collect and spend additional federal, local and grant funds. The average total expenditure per student per year in Oregon is about $10,000. The Go Global High School Study Abroad Program would have permitted local school districts to use their funds to pay for high school student to study abroad. They could pay all or part of the fees.

This is what ASSE says about Brazil:

Imagine a school year in captivating Brazil. This South American country whose official language is Portuguese offers a rich blend of cultures and traditions. In northern Brazil, you'll find smaller towns and a more rustic way of life, while Sao Paulo has cosmopolitan flair, and Rio de Janeiro offers relaxing beaches and wide promenades for bicycling. Wherever you live, from a modern city to a charming smaller town, the warmth and spirit of Brazil will make your exchange year an unforgettable experience.

Ferguson: China: "How do you cope with the rise of a credible rival?"

Niall Ferguson appeared on the Charlie Rose show on 11/3/09. Ferguson is a Harvard professor of economic history and author of the recent book “The Ascent of Money, a Financial History of the World.” The discussion ranged from the current US financial situation to future relations with China. The whole half-hour interview (here) is interesting. At the very end, from the transcript (here):

CHARLIE ROSE: We know that there’s a level of shift of power to the east. And the president knows it, everybody in Europe knows it.

NIALL FERGUSON:  But it’s not that they don’t say it, but do we grasp what this means? For 500 years the world has moved in the direction of the west. And the United States was the last of the great western powers to benefit from this shift of resources from east to west.

We’re living through a change that ends 500 years of history, a great rebalancing of the world that will see Asian powers become equal in their statue in economic terms and then geopolitical terms.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is it a zero-sum game?

NIALL FERGUSON: It can be. 

CHARLIE ROSE: But is it or not?  Maybe the United States is better off with a smaller share of a larger pie?

NIALL FERGUSON:  But, you know, the share is always going to be getting smaller as these Asian economies grow and as we slow down.

And I think the big question, which I don’t really see being addressed, is how do you cope with the rise of a credible rival? The Soviet Union was never going to have an economy the same size as the United States. It never came close. And today Russia’s economy is 4 percent the size of the U.S.

 We are facing a genuine superpower, a real economic rival. And I don’t think American foreign policy has yet adapted to that. I think there’s an assumption with Chimerica...

CHARLIE ROSE: What would it do to suggest it had adapted to that? What would it do?

NIALL FERGUSON: Let me put it this way. There is a very clear dilemma which isn’t often enough discussed, and that is this—do we accommodate China’s rise and do we accept, rather as Britain accommodated the rise of the United States, that one day it will be the dominate power of the world and we just better live with that?

Or do we try to balance it the way the United Kingdom sought to balance the rise of Germany by making alliance with the other powers that region, India being the obvious candidate?

That is the dilemma that’s right at the heart of U.S. foreign policy today. And yet I have the impression we’re so distracted by our colonial wars—and I call them colonial wars quite consciously in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we don’t see that big picture.

The Chinese see it very clearly, and at least one of the superpowers in this game is thinking in the right kind of terms about the way the world is going both economically and geopolitically.

We need to get past our distraction with “colonial wars,” bringing the funds home to reduce our deficit and rebuild our economy, and engage China through our educational programs (as is a constant theme of this blog).

NY Times: "Some Sense on Defense Spending"

Thanks to President Obama and his national security team. We have cut some of the fat from the Defense Department budget, as the New York Times editorial “Some Sense on Defense Spending” points out (here):

The $680 billion defense authorization bill signed into law by President Obama last week pares back or cancels billions of dollars in expensive weapons systems that are either anachronistic, redundant, poorly performing or exceed the military’s real requirements. Even with these reductions, the defense bill is one of the biggest in history, in part because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it sets an important base line for future cuts that need to be far more ambitious.

 The new law ends production of the C-17 transport plane (military planners say they have enough to meet current and future needs) and cancels the airborne laser (a favorite of missile defense dreamers) as well as the heart of the Army’s Future Combat System (an overly high-tech approach to war-fighting that was overbudget and ill suited to fighting today’s counterinsurgencies).

The biggest political win was ending production of the Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter jet after 187 aircraft.

Of course, more needs to be done.

And they are going to have to be even bolder next year: pressing Congress to halt production of the V-22 Osprey and the Virginia class submarine and make deeper trims in the still unproven missile defense program.

 Yes, and don’t forget Iraq and Afghanistan, and the growing need to reduce our fiscal deficit. To the extent that we pursue expensive efforts in the Iraq and Afghanistan, we are reducing our national security by undermining our economic strength.

2010-11 High School Year in French Canada for $4,870

ASSE (American Scandinavian Student Exchange, here) offers a high school year study abroad in French Canada for $4,870. Program fee includes comprehensive health, accidental death and travel insurance, host family recruitment and screening, non-English speaking country language training and orientation. Program fee does not include air travel, passport and visa fees, school uniforms (if required), educational/recreational overnight field trips, school lunch money (if necessary), and pocket money.

Host families do not receive fees or reimbursements for expenses. They will provide meals and lodging; all they ask in return is that the students participate as a responsible member of the family, assuming her/his fair share of chores around the house and sharing in family activities.

ASSE maintains 38 offices in 31 countries and accommodates more than 30,000 high school age students and host families annually in its programs in the participating countries.

The $4,870 fee is for an early application by January 15, 2010.

The 2009 Oregon legislature did not pass the Go Global High School Study Abroad Program so students and families must fund study abroad on their own. ASSE does provide some scholarships.

Oregon’s State School Fund pays local school districts on average about $6,100 per student per year. Local school districts all collect and spend additional federal, local and grant funds. The average total expenditure per student per year in Oregon is about $10,000. The Go Global High School Study Abroad Program would have permitted local school districts to use their funds to pay for high school student to study abroad. They could pay all or part of the fees.

This is what ASSE says about French Canada:

Bilingual and multicultural, Canada embraces a wide variety of peoples, landscapes and lifestyles. From the rural villages of the North to the dynamic modern cities found throughout its ten provinces and two territories, Canada has come to be known as home for many. You will live with a host family and experience life as the Canadians do–always with a flair of the European. Get involved in all types of activities from clubs and sports to music and drama groups at the local high school or within the community. Community life plays an important part in the everyday life of the Canadian. As do sports and recreation. From ice hockey to downhill skiing to windsurfing, there is something to satisfy every interest. Spend time with your new friends while exploring the many wonders Canada has to offer.

Savour the rich distinctive French Canadian culture, a blend of French and North American. You will come to love the warmth and sophistication of the "Québécois" while perfecting your French. Considered the birthplace of North American history, Quebec City is the only walled city on the continent and preserves a distinct European feel. Live outside of the lively city of Montreal, the second-largest French speaking city in the world, after Paris, or in a cottage in a quaint country village. Here English is the second language, and the culture is undeniably French. Return home bilingual, speaking French like native "francophone" Canadians.

On Privatizing Higher Ed Flagships

The New York Times publishes an occasional “Education Life” supplement to its Sunday paper. In the latest (11/1/09), there is an article “Less for More” (here) by Paul Fain. It is about higher education and subtitled “Why top flagships are raising tuition, enrolling better students and becoming more like privates. And why that may not be a good thing.”

Public universities have historically been underpriced: average in-state tuition is $7,020 this year. A re-evaluation had to happen, says David E. Shulenburger, vice president for academic affairs at the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, because the benefit has been to higher income families. “You can’t justify that subsidy for wealthier students,” he says. The trend, accelerated by the economic shakeup, is from cheap to what he calls “moderate” tuition rates, at least by private-school standards.

Mr. Shulenburger sees the tuition increases as part of a larger movement toward privatization of the most desirable flagships. With state contributions largely flat or down over the last 15 years, and enrollments and costs up, many top flagships are turning to nonpublic sources for money and, in some cases, accepting larger numbers of out-of-state students, who often pay twice the tuition of residents.

At the same time, applications are pouring in from students shut out by the stratospheric cost of private colleges. That’s generally a good thing. Flagships are attracting more wealthy and better-prepared students. Yet as the counterargument goes, a flagship’s traditional mission is to educate its own, especially a state’s low- and middle-income students. The evolution under way is putting some flagships out of reach for the students who were typically enrolled even a decade ago. Each year, the quality of students as well as the budget model skews closer to that of elite private universities.

And, with former University of Michigan president James J Duderstadt about the University of Michigan:

Still, Mr. Duderstadt says, the university fulfills its public mandate by helping to drive the state’s economy and continuing to educate Michigan’s top students. While lawmakers still grumble about the large number of students from other states, the university, he says, didn’t have alternatives. Earlier this year, state lawmakers studied the idea of taking privatization to the next level, by eliminating annual state funding. The university remains public, for now.

And, about the University of Virginia:

Some flagships have gone far in severing ties with states. Five years ago, Virginia’s four top public universities began negotiating a charter status that granted them broad autonomy, including the freedom to set tuition rates. Tuition and fees at the University of Virginia are now almost $10,000 for an entering resident, and $32,000 for a nonresident.

And about the University of Massachusetts, Amherst:

Last month, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, announced plans to double out-of-state enrollment, to nearly 30 percent, and mobilize more private donors.

On the NY Times blog about this article (here), a comment from Bill captures most of my thoughts:

It almost makes sense for states on strapped budgets to finally cut all financial subsidies to their flagship institutions, and instead continue to give them the kinds of indirect subsidies that states and communities already offer big employers in the private sector. An elite university, after all, is a huge economic engine for any state.

Money diverted from the flagships, which can clearly make it on their own, could be diverted to the second-tier publics that serve middle and lower income state residents, or directed to need- and performance- based scholarships for state residents to use at any state institution, public or private.

I would only add to Bill’s last sentence: “for state residents to use at any state institution, public or private, or at any in-state community college, or at any online higher ed program so long as they continue to reside in the state.”