While the stimulus will be helpful for college success, it does not include many new concepts for funding. It increases Pell grants dramatically, has a new tax credit plan, 3.5 billion for construction,.5 billion for work study, and other indirect aid through state government allocations. Other than yet another tax credit scheme , it breaks little new ground. I am skeptical that tax credits up to $160,000 per couple will create more low income enrollment in college. The Clinton tax credits went to the middle class who would have attended college anyway.
Another concern is wether this new money will be temporary or part of the future federal base. But the stimulus will provide much more money than postsecondary education would have received through the regular appropriation process. Will more students complete college because of this bill? No one knows.

Labels: College Completion, college costs

>
>
>Jan. 15
>More for Less
>Most college students are carrying a greater
>share of the cost of their education, even as
>institutions spend less on teaching them,
>according to a
>report released today.
>The report, published by the Delta Project on
>Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and
>Accountability, gives a potentially troubling
>picture of spending and revenue trends in higher
>education. Spanning from 2002 to 2006, the
>report indicates that tuition hikes have
>resulted in little if any new spending on
>classroom instruction at public research universities.
>"The public's got it exactly right," said Jane
>Wellman, head of the Delta Project. "They are
>jacking up tuition, and they're not re-investing it in quality."
>There's plenty of blame to go around, however,
>for this predicament. With state support waning
>for public colleges, rising tuition dollars are
>merely being used to make up for lost revenue ­
>not for hiring more faculty or taking other
>steps that would arguably improve classroom
>instruction, the report asserts. On the other
>hand, the Delta Project suggests that colleges
>haven't made the hard choices required for
>adapting to lower subsidies, as evidenced by
>relatively small changes in spending levels.
>"The data tell us that the spending patterns are
>not changing, we're just shifting revenue
>sources," Wellman said. "So what this tells us
>is we're not dealing with our cost structures, we're just shifting revenues."
>There's not much evidence to suggest that
>students at public universities are getting more
>for paying more. Between 2002 and 2006, average
>tuition at public research universities
>increased by nearly 27 percent or $1,419, but
>the spending on each student only went up by 1
>percent, or $149. In calculating "education and
>related" spending ­ the dollars spent directly
>on students ­ the Delta Project included
>expenses on instruction and student services.
>Also included in that figure is the per-student
>share of administrative functions tied to
>academics, academic support and operations and maintenance.
>Tuition increases outpaced per-student spending
>even more dramatically at public master's institutions and community colleges.
>Private institutions, on the other hand, are
>charging students more and putting more money
>into instruction at the same time, according to
>the report. At private research institutions,
>for instance, tuition went up by $985, but
>per-student spending actually rose by $1,453.
>Whether that spending translated into a higher
>quality education, however, remains to be seen.
>"This [report] tells us how we spend our money,
>but it doesn't tell us about effectiveness," Wellman said.
>The report does note that community colleges,
>for instance, are able to spend less money per
>student on the path toward graduation. Wellman
>concedes, however, that there's no way to
>determine whether what's gained in savings isn't lost in quality.
>Richard Vedder, a professor of economics at Ohio
>University, applauded the report for shining a
>light on how universities do business. At the
>same time, Vedder lamented that no one has been
>able to demonstrate effectively whether spending
>increases are helping colleges to better educate students.
>"What they have not done [in the report],
>because it's almost impossible to do, is measure
>performance, measure outcomes," said Vedder,
>director of the Center for College Affordability
>and Productivity. "Are the students learning? We
>have very limited ­ almost no ­ measure of outcomes."
>So where is all the money going? At most types
>of institutions, an increasing share of
>"education and related" spending goes toward
>administrative support and student services,
>while instruction ­ including faculty salaries ­
>is falling as a percentage of those expenses.
>Administrative expenses made up the most
>significant share of "education and related"
>expenses at private bachelor's institutions,
>where 44.2 percent of the cost of educating
>students was devoted to administration in 2006, according to the report.
>Data Brings Sunshine
>The greatest value of the Delta Project's report
>may yet to be realized. Leaders of the project,
>which is funded by the Lumina Foundation for
>Education, plan to create a Web-based function
>that will allow users to look at the spending
>and revenue data of individual institutions.
>While the raw data is already public through the
>federal data clearinghouse for higher education,
>known as the Integrated Postsecondary Education
>Data System (IPEDS), the Delta Project hopes to
>create a function that adds context and meaning
>to the often dizzying IPEDS numbers.
>Charles Miller, who chaired the U.S. Secretary
>of Education's Commission on the Future of
>Higher Education, said he welcomes the greater
>sunshine that the Delta Project is bringing to postsecondary education.
>"Unless you have data that's in this kind of
>form, it's very hard to make decisions and
>policy judgments that are objective," he said.
>After reviewing the report, Miller said the
>Delta Project had made a data-driven case for
>reform, without having to use the sometimes
>tough language that's found in many such
>reports, including the one Miller's own commission presented.
>"It doesn't say 'Here are the failings of the
>system,' and a lot of the report is going to
>avoid doing that, but [Wellman] implies it," he said.
>In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Wellman
>noted that the lack of transparency in higher
>education is a problem in and of itself.
>Institutions are reluctant to engage in much
>introspection about costs, because it raises
>"uncomfortable questions," she said. At a time
>when state support and private giving are sure
>to keep declining, however, it would behoove
>college leaders to closely examine exactly where
>they're getting money and spending money, Wellman said.
>"We're robbing Peter to pay Paul," she said. "We
>better find out who Peter and Paul are.
>viewed online at
>http://insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/15/delta.
>

Labels: college costs

In a recession more adults enroll in college, but almost all the selective sector does not grow much. Flagship state universities are expensive, so growth is funneled to nonselective 2 and 4 year colleges.Community colleges take the brunt of enrollment surges, but states and localities are cutting their budgets. So transition from high school suffers as counselors are reduced, class sizes enlarged, and adjunct professors hired. Lower percentages of students will complete college because of the reasons above, but also they cannot get the classes they need for their educational objectives. So the enrollment door is open, but not the path to college success.
The New york Times has a good summary of this on page A22 today with some vocations in New York city surging by 30% this year alone. Community college enrollment is up to 81,000 this year from 62,000 in 1999, but budgets have been cut twice this year and more coming.
Broad access colleges also have many strings on the public money they get, and are regulated similar to k12 state education codes. The most flexibility is in the selective college sector. These issues of finance and regulation in postsecondary to not receive the same attention as the equity and adequacy movement in k12.

Labels: College Completion, college costs

HigheredWatch reports that Paulson put student loans into the bailout bill in the last few days. Many reports have come to my attention about student loan credit squeezes and private lenders in fiscal difficulty. So watch for whether a bailout happens and who gets the money. Is it some of the same lenders who exploited the interest rate loopholes in the past decade?

Labels: college costs, college lending

The New York Times ran an article on september 10 reporting on how wealthy selective institutions defend high and rising tuitons. Two facts caught my eye. Only 3% on the nations college students are at institutions costing $25,000 dollars or more- just 75 universities control over 70% of all endowment assets! Amherst spends $80,000 a year for each pupil.
Meanwhile the California community colleges spend on average around $6,000 per fte and have almost no endowment. They charge $18 a credit hour. California State University recieved $10,600 from the state per fte in 2005. These gaps are so large between selective and broad access that it is difficult to think about any public policy that they share in common.

Labels: college costs

The Pacific Research Institute a right of center think tank in California estimates the total cost of remediation for a single cohort of college freshman at 2 and 4 year California colleges at between $3.9 billion and $13.9 billion annually, driven largely by lost individual earnings and related social costs. The direct remediation costs for Ca postsecondary institutions is $247 million. But there are high and low estimates for many other costs such as lost earnings, crime, and reduced tax receipts. The study is provocative, but hardly definitive. Yet it is good for discussion because older studies only use direct costs to colleges and are way out of date. See the study at http:liberty.pacificresearch.org. The study is titled The High Price of Failure in California.

Labels: academic preparation College Completion, college costs

A new nationwide poll by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reveals that concern is growing about college costs and availability. 78% of Americans believe students have to borrow too much money to pay for college, 62% believe many qualified students do not have access to college,59% say college prices are rising as fast or faster than health care.
But this poll also shows what all recent polls have found : higher education gets much higher public approval marks than k-12 -51% grade higher education good or excellent compared to 37% for k-12. So there still is not much public pressure to overhaul higher ed. As long as the public myth continues that USA higher ed is the best in the world not much is likely to happen to change it. See the poll at www.highereducation.org

Labels: college costs

USC has established a Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice. I spoke at the opening conference August 5. There are a number of new papers on the website at the core of this blog.Sandy Baum did a comprehensive paper on student aid. There is a debate on testing between Wayne Camara of College Board and Saul Geiser of University of California.
My favorites were on the lack of college policy, central leadership, and initiatives on college persistence and college completion by Don Hossler of the University of Indiana and David Kalsbeek at Depaul. No one is in charge of retention at colleges and staff resources minimal. See it all at www.usc.edu/cerpp.

Labels: academic preparation College Completion, college costs

Looking Under the Hood of Public Higher Ed
By Patrick M. Callan


Last week, the College Board released its annual Trends in College
Pricing report, finding that tuition at the nation's public four-year
colleges and universities had risen 6.6 percent, which is roughly
equivalent to previous years but continues to far outstrip inflation and
increases in family income.


Media coverage of college affordability almost invariably takes its cues
from this report, focusing on the "sticker price" that colleges and
universities charge students. But tuition alone is a relatively
superficial measure that hides as much as it reveals, since it responds
to changes in state allocations, political factors and fund raising
success.


What has gone mostly undiscussed is escalating spending on college
campuses across the country. A public discussion focused on tuition -
the price of the education - gives institutions a free pass on how they
spend the money they raise. Furthermore, this discussion reinforces the
assumption that spending increases follow some sort of natural
progression. But this is not the case. Spending can and must be
contained if the price of college is to be brought under control.


This message is falling on deaf ears today in part because last year was
a good state appropriations year for colleges and universities. But even
in bad years, public institutions are raising spending. Today, higher
education is a "seller's market." Demand for college has never been
higher, and families are willing to take on dangerous amounts of debt to
get their children through.


However, the willingness of families to reach deeper into their pockets
is reaching a breaking point. Recent polling by my organization, the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and Public
Agenda shows that the public is concerned about how colleges and
universities spend their money. Most Americans (83 percent) believe that
today's colleges should be doing a much better job of keeping their
costs down. More than two out of three (68 percent) believe that
colleges and universities could reduce their costs without hurting the
quality of the institutions.


The American public is onto something. But many institutional leaders
have not been willing to look under the hood of higher education
expenditures. Typically, leaders have used a range of excuses to deflect
questions about spending. Some common excuses, and my responses to them,
follow:


Increases in tuition reflect the high demand for postsecondary education
and financial aid keeps the net cost to families under control. Public
college and university leaders think there is no crisis in higher
education so long as there are students and families willing to pay. But
tuitions at four-year public institutions have risen 22 percent in the
past five years, after adjusting for inflation, while family incomes
have increased only 8 percent. What's more, need-based financial aid is
not keeping up with increases in tuition, pricing many poor families out
of higher education. Continual price hikes may respond to market forces,
but do not honor the public mission of state colleges and universities.


Higher education is a labor-intensive industry and faculty salaries and
health care costs are behind most of the recent run-up in spending.
Because institutions use humans to pass on knowledge, historically a
greater proportion of their budgets have gone to salaries and benefits
than in other industries. But this is not where most of the spending
growth is occurring. Faculty salaries have barely kept up with inflation
for the past 10 years. Last year, faculty salaries rose on average 1.3
percent after adjusting for inflation - the first inflation-adjusted
increase since 2003-2004. In addition, the use of cheaper part-time
faculty is growing fast, now making up 48 percent of all faculty,
according to the American Association of University Professors. On the
other hand, universities are spending huge amounts of money on
construction - for new dorms, new athletic facilities, and new student
centers- as part of an "amenities arms race." And administrative
overhead at many universities has ballooned, due to an explosion in
niche student services and fund raising apparatuses. It is doubtful that
these developments have improved student learning.


There is great competition for applicants nowadays, and we have to spend
to compete for the best students. This is probably the most common
excuse offered by leaders at state flagship universities, but they are
not referring to competition with other state institutions. Rather,
leaders at public research universities are increasingly viewing
themselves as competitors with private research universities such as
Duke and Stanford, or even Ivy League institutions. These leaders feel
that they can only "compete" if they offer the same amenities and
practice the same aggressive recruitment tactics, including lavish merit
aid for high performing students, which takes resources away from
low-income students. Instead, they should refocus on their educational
mission, and the advantage that public institutions have always had: the
availability of need-based financial aid and the opportunity for a great
education. Prospective students seeking high quality education at low
cost will be smart enough to know the difference between style and
substance.


There's no political incentive to take on cost containment. Most
institutional leaders don't want to touch this issue because it almost
inevitably leads to faculty concerns that they will be expected to do
more for less. Faculty will revolt, if "cost containment" means
across-the-board budget cuts. In cases where institutional leaders have
contained spending and reinvested savings in teaching and learning,
faculty have been very supportive. The University System of Maryland is
a case in point. Chancellor William E. (Brit) Kirwan got faculty support
for the Effectiveness and Efficiency Initiative, which identified areas
for cost savings and redirected those savings toward priorities such as
increasing enrollment capacity, containing tuition increases, and
improving academic programs and services for students. Even though
faculty teaching loads increased 10 percent, faculty largely supported
the measure, because it was focused on improving student learning.


At the state level, lawmakers and system heads don't want to engage cost
because it requires a restructuring of higher education finance. States
base appropriations on students enrolled, which encourages spending on
amenities and recruitment - not students graduating.


Where there have been incentives, universities have proven capable of
cost management. In the 1990s, the Illinois Board of Higher Education
established the Priorities, Quality, and Productivity initiative, which
re-evaluated all academic programs with an eye to institutional
priorities. Elimination of duplicative programs, technology
enhancements, and administrative streamlining resulted in savings
averaging $36 million annually. As at Maryland, faculty came to support
PQP because the savings generated were reinvested in instruction. These
funds were most often used to reduce class size and reliance on graduate
teaching assistants; support minority student achievement; improve
technology; and expand need-based financial aid.


My hands are tied, because the biggest decisions are made at the state
level. Big decisions about allocations are made at the state level, but
institutional leaders have a lot of discretion about how that money is
spent. While there aren't many incentives for cost containment now,
there also isn't much oversight of spending requests. Institutional
leaders have lots of room to maneuver on this issue.


Cutting spending hits disadvantaged students hardest. Cutting spending
only hits disadvantaged students hardest if need-based financial aid is
the first target. In fact, cost containment, if it focuses (as it
should) on increasing instructional spending, boosting degree
completion, and streamlining administrative processes, can make public
higher education work much better for disadvantaged students. That is
because these are the students most likely to have trouble completing
degrees and to have the most interaction with administrative offices.


There is another major reason why colleges are not acting on this
agenda. There is too little data about how spending impacts learning. In
contrast to business or the military, how inputs affect outputs is
poorly understood in higher education. New research being conducted by
the Delta Project for Postsecondary Costs to be released next year will
set the basis for looking at the relationship between spending and
student success.


But the lack of data is no barrier for action. We don't need to wait for
longitudinal studies to know that more spending on full-time faculty and
need-based financial aid will impact student learning more than a glitzy
new dorm.


Taking a hard look at the evidence shows that it is time to focus on
college spending patterns and that there is a lot college leaders can do
right now to contain the spending that drives up college prices. Many of
the problems originate at the state level, but bold leaders will take
action regardless of incentive structures and political rewards. It is
time to expect more of college and university leaders than we do now.


Patrick M. Callan is president of the National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education.

Labels: college costs, college sucess

According to NCES data bases community college students are distinctive. 43% have income below $30,000 compared to 34% in 4 year publics and 32% in not for profit 4 year private. 66% are part time compared to 30% and 27%. 33% have dependent children compared to 13% and 27%.
Yet community college students get the least financial aid of all sectors because there living expenses are not covered. There is too much focus on lower communtity college fees ,and not enough on how these students can meet room and board through living off campus. No wonder community college completion rates are low.

Labels: College Completion, college costs, student aid

As someone who has a long history in k-12 school finance, I am amazed how little we know by contrast in postsecondary internal allocation of resources. It is a virtual blackbox compared to k-12 where we know what each school site does to a considerable extent. Some glimmers of light on postsecondary spending are coming from the Delta Cost Project sponsored by Lumina. But all they do is analyze how little is spent on direct instruction compared to "other education costs" and " non-ed costs". How much goes to student services for developmental ed students? How much is for counselors?
Within instruction, what are the true costs of remediation? How much is spent on college persistence and completion assistance? We have no idea!
So the Delta project needs to be a start on a much deeper analysis that is linked to educational outcomes as well as high priority services for disadvantages students in broad access postsecondary.

Labels: College Completion, college costs

College completion is very low for nonselective postsecondary education-less than 50% for 4 year and about 30% for 2 year colleges. There are many causes , but we do not know which is the most or least important. Here are 5 causes from Michal Kurlaender at UC- Davis :
-Compositional Changes in College Going Population- eg more students start at 2 year, go part time
-Student lacks Interest in Continuing- eg courses are boring or gets job.
-Financial Constraints
-Poor Academic prepardness and k-12 alignment of standards , study habits etc.
- Bad Institutional practices- students cannot get needed courses, lack of counseling, failure to promote financial aid
All of these are important, but it is puzzling that similar colleges have different college completion rates. More on this in next blog

Labels: College Completion, college costs

Many students who are in the middle or lower part of their high school graduation class are unsure whether or when they should go to college. The next decision is where. Starting with the first two decisions is correct, but complex. Many students want to delay going or think they are ready academically and cannot. This is analyzed in depth by the publication I co-authored "Betraying the College Dream" at http://brigeproject.stanford.edu. This website has many other studies that discuss these issues. But since then we have added another website to guide prospective college students through their decisions on whether, where, and when to go to college. Just click the website at the right hand top of this blog to begin solving the college puzzle. It asks you questions on many pieces of the puzzle and then gives you summary advice at the end.

Labels: college costs, college information, college knowledge, ready for college

Congress and the Clinton administration have expanded dramatically the tax credits for college costs. But they are used only by families with income high enough to use them. Congress should redirect some of the $5 billion spent on tax credits to enlarging the Pell grant for low income students. Such changes would allow pell grants to exceed $6,ooo which is close to the average tuition at the average 4 year public college. Pell grants have eroded significantly over the past 30 years. Now that congress and the Bush administration have recently increased pell grants, it is time to break the policy mode and go after the tax credits.

Labels: college costs, income, support for college, wealth

I attended a conference on early college high schools that enable
average students to take college courses in high school up to 60
credits. These schools are spreading through Gates foundation grants,
and are impressive. They utilize lots of innovative practices
starting in the middle grades to prepare and nurture students for
college. Most of them are in low income areas and admit by lottery.
But they require students to attend longer hours, and to pursue a
college prep curriculum. But early college high schools have many
supports for students such as mentors, counselors, parent outreach,
and stimulating curriculum. They are smaller and more personalized
than typical big city high schools.

The costs are higher for early college schools and I wonder what
will happen after the foundation money runs out. However, the results
may be worth the extra money, and I was impressed with the energetic
staff and some preliminary outcomes for students. gates is evaluating
these schools so we will know more in a few years. For an overview,
check the major technical assistance provider for early college - www.jff.org

Labels: academic preparation College Completion, college costs, college information, college knowledge, College Preparation, College Readiness, College Success, curriculum alignment, ready for college

Malcolm Getz at Vanderbilt has published a new book on payoffs from different kinds of colleges from the perspective of labor market returns for various careers. He provides what average earnings are in a variety of occupations and links these to colleges including community colleges. He analyzes whether it pays off to go to expensive private colleges compared to low cost publics. He also includes what one purchases from tuition after a student attends various types of colleges. I like his rare inclusion of the difference between tuition prices and the numerous discounts private schools offer.
Overall, this is the best consumer oriented fiscal analysis I have seen. It is directed at parents and students, not institutions or policy wonks. The book is Investing in College: A Guide for the Perplexed by Harvard University Press.

Labels: College Completion, college costs

Jobs for the Future in Boston has summarized the key findings of a October conference with 500 leaders on transition from secondary school to broad access colleges http://doublethenumbers.org/
* Create multiple pathways that enable all students to graduate high school prepared for college and work
*Incorporate college-level leraning experiences into the high school years.
*Restructure developmental course sequences and upgrade student supports
* Strategic management of institutional spending in expanded capacity and improved student learning.
JFF has a strong focus on out of school youth and very low acheiving students. To see the details on these four strategies, go to the website.

Labels: College Completion, college costs, college sucess

Washington state began an aggressive program in 1990 to have high school students earn credit at community college while enrolled in high school. This is called " Running Start" dual enrollment, and costs only $7 million dollars a year. It now reaches 17,ooo high school students, and saves on college tuition because students finish college earlier. The program reaches students not normally enrolled in AP. Many students say they are tired of the high school mentality and want to move on earlier. Running Start enrollment is 7% of the Seattle Community Colleges enrollment.
A big unkown issue is whether Running Start and dual enrollment enhances the probability of college sucess and college completion. Teachers College at Columbia is funding a randomized experiment to find this out for the City University of New York. This entire policy area of dual enrollment needs to move from promising to proven approach. Other than cost savings we still do not know much about the benefits of Running Start.

Labels: College Completion, college costs, College Success

Twenty state university systems are working together to craft plans to cut the minority college graduation gap in half by 2015. These systems such as State University System of Florida educate about 12% of the students in the nations four year colleges. They all have much higher graduation rates for whites and Asians than for other racial and ethnic groups. Some state universities like Towson in Maryland have already met completion goals
It remains to be seen whether this is a real committment or just more goal setting. One of the strategies is to manage college costs, so that colleges can spend more on initiatives to increase college completion. Colleges have been unable to control their costs in the past, in part because their model is to keep labor costs so high compared to lower cost use of technology. But this initiative will require universities to report on their goals in a more transparent way than before. A decade ago the California State University trustees set a goal of eliminating remediation, but it has declined only to 56% from 60% for their students entering from high school. See www.edtrust.org for more details.

Labels: College Completion, college costs

Many studies over several decades demonstrate that high school students and parents overestimate college tuition. In our study Betraying the College Dream http://bridgeproject.stanford.edu/ we found that significant numbers of students estimated more than five times the real cost of tuition. The US Department of Education found overestimates in their studies as well. Yes, tuition is going up, but many middle and low income people think private college tuitions like Harvard apply to state institutions. But California community colleges cost $300 for full time attendance, and the University of California tuition is under $6,000.
In many cases the underestimated college costs by prospective college students are for room , board, textbooks, and student fees. Community colleges can be expensive if you add these in because even if students do not live on campus they still must pay rent and eat. This is another indicator have how poor the information system is for students who attend broad access colleges. They overestimate and underestimate at the same time. Our other site http://mycollegepuzzle.com/ has a method for figuring out real college costs.

Labels: college costs, college information