Community College institutions in Idaho are not getting the kind of attention they rightly deserve. They are being held hostage by the sacred cow “local control.”

Local control was developed within the public school system, not in higher education. Its intention was to control the tax burden. Look at both North Idaho College and the Community Colleges of Spokane. No local tax money is involved in Spokane, while significant property tax money is collected on behalf of North Idaho College.

What are the visible differences? Both have a board of trustees, NIC’s is elected, CCS’s is appointed by the governor. Both hire their own president (CEO in Spokane), both hire their own faculty. Both bargain with employees in labor contracts and both offer university transfer credit classes and vocational training classes. Both respond to local community needs. Does the Washington state system of community colleges provide less “local control” than North Idaho College supposedly enjoys? No.

Transfer credit courses must meet standards established at the university level. Credit may be granted, but is that class accepted in lieu of a course taught on the university campus? That is controlled at the university.

It is unfortunate the “local control” issue is taking on such a significant role when the real issue of post-secondary education is left floundering in the weeds. The state of Idaho has assumed the total responsibility for baccalaureate education. It likewise includes vocational programs for state funding that are taught on campus by Boise State, Idaho State and Lewis and Clark State. The same programs taught at North Idaho College and the College of Southern Idaho are significantly funded from property taxes in three counties. In spite of an “out-of-county” tuition cost to students from other counties, which is paid for from property tax revenues of those counties in which the student has residency, the full-time-equivalent cost is much higher for the tax-paying residents of Kootenai County than for, say, Bonner County. Is it the role of local control to sponsor and support such an inequity? I think not.

The real issue Idaho should face is what the state’s responsibility is for post-secondary education? Is a person who wants a degree in biology more important than one who needs the education and training to become a welder?

Is the person who seeks a graduate degree to further career opportunities more important than the lumber mill employee who lost a job when logs became scarce and now needs retraining to keep his family intact? Again the answer is NO, but the needs are different. In Washington, the state assumes this responsibility by assigning it to the state wide University AND Community College system. In Idaho, property taxes assume a hefty part of that heavy burden, but only in three counties. Is that what the advocates of local control are trying to preserve?

Local control is basically an expression of the philosophy of the Community Colleges leadership. In both states buildings are approved (or not) at the State level, They are only requested locally. Budgets are local control only to the extent of setting student fees and in Idaho a property tax rate. The rest is state control. The expenditure of funds is subjected to state requirements. Getting right down to the nitty gritty of things, it is the programs, classes and services this particular institution will provide that is the essence of local control. NIC has no more flexibility in these areas than CCS, which is part of a state system. Vocational education opportunities are much more limited in Idaho because Idaho does not support this aspect of education as a genuine responsibility of the state.

Local control is not the real issue. The real issue is what the state of Idaho should do for its citizens who need post-secondary educational opportunities, whether that means a baccalaureate degree, advanced degree or vocational training — including retraining of displaced workers. Funding is a far more important topic of discussion than “local control.” It is unfortunate that local control has such a strangle hold on political thought.

Many different models in other states successfully address these emerging needs of a changing society. Idaho does not need to reinvent the wheel, nor should it bury its head and say “it was good enough in 1980.” The real meaning of local control in the post-secondary institutional setting is the ability to provide instruction that meets the needs of people who are preparing for the world of work. Community college is not a store where you choose from the inventory they offer, but rather an institution that provides an inventory of what people say they need.

The time has come in Idaho for a comprehensive study of all post-secondary educational and training needs. This could easily be done by an independent group of knowledgeable people with no political or ideological axe to grind.