Skip to content
Blog

Tag: attainment

A New Normal?

Posted on

In A New Funding Paradigm for Higher Education, the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) puts the Great Recession into context and discusses the cyclical nature of state funding for higher education, which has historically followed a pattern of major cuts in poor economic periods followed by generous reinvestment in good times.

Considering the generally bleak assessment of the speed of economic recovery for state budgets, NASBO asserts that this boom and bust funding pattern may finally be broken. Many do not expect state funding for public higher education to return to previous levels, and this has states, institutions, and other stakeholders wondering what a ‘new normal’ may look like.

Many institutions think that at least part of the answer lies in seeking greater autonomy from state processes and requirements, and more flexibility in managing institutional resources. Whatever the outcomes, many are hoping that achieving a more stable and predictable funding model might keep public higher education on solid ground as we move toward an uncertain future.

WA Higher Education Task Force Report Released

Posted on

Last summer, Governor Gregoire created a Higher Education Task force, comprising both public and private leaders, and charged them with proposing a new funding strategy for public higher education, as well as new ideas for increasing institutional accountability. The Task Force released its report yesterday, January 3rd, recommending three major reforms to higher education policy in Washington State.

First, the group suggested that tuition setting authority be given to the universities to help make up for budget cuts from the legislature. Based on their proposal, the institutions would use a formula to determine appropriate tuition rates, taking into account state appropriations, tuition at peer institutions, and enrollment levels.

Second, the Task Force proposed the creation of a Washington Pledge Scholarship Program, which would be funded by private donors. They hope the fund would reach $ 1 billion by the end of the decade. Corporations would receive a tax credit for donating, although that benefit would not kick in until overall tax revenue returned to 2008 levels.

Third, they recommended that the state give cash incentives to universities that meet certain degree production targets. In addition, they encourage universities to make plans to reach retention goals set forth by the state.

Finally, the Task Force listed other money-saving strategies, such as including more online introductory-level classes, developing three-year degrees, giving more credit for college-level work done in high school and at other institutions, and eliminating underused degree programs.

Make sure to check the State Relations blog for a round-up of some of the local press coverage relating to this report.

Americans Believe Higher Ed Drives Economy, Unwilling to Pay More Taxes

Posted on

The results of a Stanford University/AP education poll conducted in September were released yesterday. The representative group of respondents confirmed earlier data on the same topic, mainly that Americans believe strongly that higher education is a vital economic engine and that more Americans should participate in it, but that they are not very willing to pay higher taxes to increase public support for institutions.

Some of the most compelling findings included:

  • 88% believe that higher education has a very large or large impact on the overall prosperity of the country.
  • 79% believe that the US economy would improve if all Americans had at least a two-year degree.
  • 74% believe that the quality of education provided by four year public institutions in their state is excellent or good.
  • Survey respondents primarily blame students and parents for graduation rates, whether high or low.
  • Only 42% favor or somewhat favor raising taxes to increase support for higher education, while 46% oppose raising taxes.

Federal Scrutiny of For-Profit Colleges Turns to Recruitment of Veterans

Posted on

Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the US Senate HELP Committee, has released another report on the practices of the for-profit higher education industry, this time focusing on whether or not such institutions are taking advantage of US veterans in an effort to capture newly increased GI Bill education benefits (read our earlier posts on this issue: Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges, and  Under Federal Fire, For-Profit College Point Finger at Publics).

The New York Times published Wednesday a detailed article on this topic, Profits and Scrutiny for Colleges Courting Veterans, that included a host of primary source documents.

Senator Harkin has moved a hearing on the topic from early December to a yet to be determined day in early 2011. Because the Senate will remain in Democratic control, Harkin will continue as Chairman of the HELP Committee and is expected to carry forward his investigation of this rapidly expanding sector of higher education, which relies almost entirely on federal student aid dollars to generate large profits for shareholders while many students drop out  and face high levels of education loan debt. Some speculate that recent Republican gains in the Senate and House may hamper the likelihood of passing strong regulatory legislation in the coming year.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Education is in the process of implementing new regulatory rules aimed at tightening oversight on the sector (see previous post: New Federal Higher Ed Regulation Published Today).

We will continue to monitor this ongoing story, as well as some calls for the federal government to extend their scrutiny to traditional institutions.

Should Federal Government Support a Regional Approach to Public Higher Ed?

Posted on

The Center for American Progress released a new report, Easy Come, EZ-GO: A Federal Role in Removing Jurisdictional Impediments to College Education, that presents a bold argument for the creation of Education Zone Governance Organizations (EZ-GO), which would provide federal resources to help ease barriers to higher education for citizens of metropolitan areas that cross state borders (20 out of 44). The Center argues that a more regional approach to higher education in such areas is necessary to reach ambitious new college attainment goals.

While higher education policy has historically been formed at the state-level due to state funding of institutions, the report asserts that this strategy is no longer sufficient given the growth of higher education participation coupled with the increased mobility of Americans. This is especially illustrated in the 20 metropolitan areas they identify as crossing state lines. In these locations, citizens are often restricted in their access to affordable, quality higher education based on their state of residence, primarily due to:

  • State based financial aid
  • Residency based tuition pricing
  • Credit transfer policies between institutions

One of five Americans live in such areas, including in Portland, a metropolitan area that reaches into Washington State. The majority of the institutional capacity in the Portland metropolitan area is located in the State of Oregon, which means that your specific address has real ramifications for your access to affordable higher education, which these authors argue is suboptimal for increasing attainment.

Ultimately, they recommend that the federal government create EZ-GO areas (overseen by an EZ-GO Commission) to:

  • Provide technical support to develop EZ-GO-wide articulation agreements
  • Support capital investments to built up institutional capacity
  • Assist in matching postsecondary programs to local labor markets
  • Encourage partnerships between institutions and across sectors

Expect a lot of proposals like this one to surface as stakeholders across the nation grapple with how to, in a relatively short period of time, raise the percentage of Americans with a two-year or four-year degree from 38% to 60%.

New Federal Higher Ed Regulations Published Today

Posted on

Having weighed tens of thousands of public comments, the US Department of Education released today a final set of regulations governing various aspects of higher education. While primarily aimed at what are widely seen as abuses within the for-profit higher education system, the regulations apply to all institutions and are driven by the federal government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the federal government’s $170+ billion annual investment in higher education via student aid programs (governed by Title IV of the US Higher Education Act).

Notably, final regulations regarding the controversial gainful employment rule were not published today. Having received over 90,000 public comments and facing an intense for-profit sector lobbying effort, the Department has indicated a need for more time before it is able to finalize gainful employment regulations. The Department will host public meetings on the rule on November 4th and 5th.

Inside Higher Ed has a good overview of the regulations released today, which will take effect in July 2011, as well as links to the rules and a list of the revisions made since the initial rules were proposed. Major changes include:

  • Eliminates loopholes allowing institutions to provide incentive pay for admissions and financial aid employees. The rules now explicitly state that incentive payments for employees can not “in any part” be based on enrollment or financial aid metrics.
  • Revises the definition of a credit hour for the purpose of awarding federal student aid.
  • Clarifies the timeline for returning federal student aid when a student is no longer enrolled.
  • Requires for-profit institutions to provide easily accessed graduation and job placement statistics, as well has college cost calculators.
  • Requires institutions to notify DOE of new non-degree certificate programs, some of which DOE may determine require a formal application for federal approval (note that this is an area where feedback/lobbying had a significant impact as the original rule required DOE approval for all such programs).

These rules represent a large step for the federal government in regulating higher education in the US.

For more information on the federal government’s intensifying scrutiny of the for-profit higher education sector and why it matters to traditional institutions, see our previous posts: Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges, and Under Federal Fire, For-Profit Colleges Point Finger at Publics.

Berkeley Report Provides Roadmap for ‘Smart Growth’ in Higher Ed

Posted on

John Aubrey Douglass of UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education has issued a new report on the current status of higher education, and potential paths for growth and change into the future.

In Re-Imagining California Higher Education, Douglass argues that the existing model for higher education in California (here representative of higher education in states across the US) has changed only incrementally over recent decades and is ill suited, due primarily to the combination of declining per student funding and increased enrollment, to meet the near-term demands of the economy, much less US stated goals of dramatically increased participation and attainment for the future.

Douglass proposes that California boldy reimagine its higher education system by building on the existing strengths of its current tripartite system (two year community colleges, the four-year California State system, and the four-year UC research institutions). Among his proposals:

  • An expanded community college sector that includes a set of institutions offering four year degrees and a set of institutions with a more explicit ‘transfer focus’.
  • A new poli-technic institution sector that focuses on applied degrees in science, engineering and technology.
  • A new online ‘open university’ that focuses on adult and/or placebound learners in California.
  • Increased focus on international recruitment to attract funding dollars and top talent to the state.
  • Increased focus on partnering with the federal government in funding institutions beyond basic research and financial aid to students.

With arguably the best– and certainly the largest– public higher education system in the country, if not world, the old saying ‘So goes California, so goes the nation’ comes to mind while reading Douglass’ report.

Under Federal Fire, For-Profit Colleges Point Finger at Publics

Posted on

As a result of recent federal scrutiny, the for-profit higher education industry and its supporters have begun to turn their protests toward the unfairness of singling out the for-profit companies while ignoring traditional higher education’s non-profit institutions, particularly public community colleges and four year institutions.

Congressional scrutiny of for-profit education companies comes at the same time that the Obama administration has been pushing new Department of Education regulations that would use three tests– debt-to-earnings ratio for students, debt-to-discretionary income ratio for students, and the loan repayment rate of students—to determine whether a for-profit program would be eligible for federal financial aid funds under Title IV. A large lobbying effort led to over 90,000 public comments on these “gainful employment” regulations, causing the Department to delay publication of the rule.

Opponents of these rules and hearings include Republicans and Democrats as well as various interest groups, many of whom receive large sums of money from the for-profit education industry. The sector’s industry group, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (known up until September 22 as the Career College Association), institutions, and other stakeholders have spent millions waging a campaign against further regulation. Notably, these lobbying efforts include Chairman and CEO Donald Graham whose Washington Post Company owns Kaplan as well as an 8% stake in Corinthian Colleges, both giants in the for-profit education sector that currently provide over 60% of the Post’s annual revenue. The Post has been called to task for using its opinion and editorial pages to argue against the regulations.

At a HELP Committee hearing on September 30th, three Republican Senators, Richard Burr (NC), John McCain (AZ) and the committee’s ranking minority member Mike Enzi (WY), emphasized their disappointment that the scope of the hearings did not include non-profit institutions. Additionally, for-profit institutions have funded two reports claiming that for-profit colleges are more efficient at producing graduates, and more responsible with taxpayer dollars than non-profit institutions, including community colleges, public four years and private four years. The increased aggressiveness with which proponents of for-profit education are attacking traditional higher education with misleading information and data is troubling. The market share of for-profit institutions continues to rapidly grow alongside ambitions to compete with traditional institutions.

Ultimately, federal attention paid to this issue is a possible harbinger of increased scrutiny for all of higher education. The federal government spends over $170 billion dollars on student aid (loans and grants) each year, potentially providing powerful grounds for increased federal oversight. Looking forward, some of the same questions being asked of for-profit colleges about debt burden, retention, and completion could be asked of the non-profit sector as well. The combination of rapidly rising tuition in an economic crisis, concerns about US competitiveness in the global economy, and the aggressive goals to nearly double the portion of Americans with some level of higher education may create a compelling case for increased federal attention.

Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges

Posted on

The atmosphere was tense on the morning of September 30th as attendees, many of them proponents of the for-profit higher education sector, overflowed into a second room to witness a hearing held by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP). The hearing, The Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Are Students Succeeding, was the third in a series held by the HELP committee under the leadership of its Chairman, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA).

A GAO report on the results of an undercover operation that investigated 15 for-profit education companies revealed “misleading, deceptive, overly aggressive or fraudulent recruitment” practices at all 15 schools visited. Two reports by Senator Harkin’s staff, Emerging Risk?: An Overview of Growth, Spending, Student Debt and Unanswered Questions in For-Profit Higher Education, and The Return on the Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Debt Without a Diploma, provided even more detail, drawing on nationally available data as well as data that Senator Harkin requested directly from 30 of the largest privately held and publicly traded education companies.

Some of the facts revealed in these publications:

  • Less than 10% of postsecondary students are enrolled in for-profits, yet they receive 23% of federal aid, and account for 44% of all loan defaults.
  • 95% of all students at for-profits borrow money to attend, compared to less than a quarter of community college students, 64% of students at public four year institutions, and 72% at private four year institutions.
  • Almost 60% of students at for-profits drop out within 2 years of enrolling.
  • Student enrollment has grown exponentially. For example, in 1991, the University of Phoenix had 7,000 students. Today it has 475,000 and is the 2nd largest higher education system in America, enrolling more students than the Big 10.
  • On average, 90% of all revenue comes from federal student aid dollars (a $24b annual taxpayer investment), belying claims of being purely private sector institutions.

As the hearings have uncovered more information about these companies, Chairman Harkin’s resolve to continue the fact finding mission has strengthened, and he has pledged to sponsor legislation aimed at tightening regulations. Harkin called fundamentally flawed and unconscionable a system that funnels taxpayer dollars through poor students to line the pockets of the wealthy, leaving many students with no diploma, all students with heavy debt, and the taxpayers, who have guaranteed that debt, at risk.

The next hearing will be held in early December.

In our next post we will consider the implications that this issue might have for traditional institutions of higher education like the UW.