Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Children Left Behind

September 14, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Much has been said and written in recent years about how rising college tuitions and insufficient need-based financial aid are combining to diminish access to higher education for students from low and moderate income backgrounds. Now an independent federal panel has tried to quantify exactly how many students have failed to get a bachelor's degree because of those factors, and the numbers are striking.

In "Mortgaging Our Future: How Financial Barriers to College Undercut America's Global Competitiveness," the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, a nonpartisan panel that advises Congress, estimates that in the 1990s, between 800,000 and 1.6 million low and moderate income high school students who were both academically qualified for and intent on attending a four-year college did not go on to earn a bachelor's degree. In this decade, the panel concludes, another 1.4 million to 2.4 million similarly situated students face the same fate. The panel's report describes the formula used to produce its "loss" estimates and projections (which is described below) as "extremely conservative."

"These bachelor's degree losses are an unmistakable signal that our nation has yet to make the full investment in student aid necessary to secure our economic future -- a dire warning that we are requiring millions of students to mortgage their future and ours as well," the panel writes in its report, which the advisory committee presented to Congress this week, drawing contrasting reactions from leaders of the two parties (more on that later).

Much of the analysis contained in the advisory committee's report will be familiar to those who follow issues of college access. It offers a slew of statistics showing how much likelier students from wealthier households are than those from lower socioeconomic classes to find a place in college, and joins the long list of recent reports tying America's future economic competitiveness globally to its ability to educate increasing numbers of its citizens in the future.

But what's really new in the report, and likely to attract both attention and some scrutiny, is its attempt to quantify the educational inequality based on socioeconomic status. 

The advisory committee uses a multi-step process to come up with its estimates of the number of students who are "lost." Using two federal databases -- which examine the educational outcomes of eighth graders in 1988 and 2000, respectively -- it first identifies those students who graduated from high school "college qualified," based on the level of math they completed. (The range it produces of those affected -- for instance, the conclusion that between 800,000 and 1.6 million students were excluded in the 1990s -- emerges because it looks both at those students who successfully completed algebra II and those who completed trigonometry.)

The report then whittles down those college-qualified students by looking at those who said in 10th grade that they wanted to get a bachelor's degree, and later reported in 12th grade that they planned to get a degree. The report then examines the "melt" between those who said in 12th grade that they planned to get a degree and those who actually had enrolled in a four-year college within two years. It then counts how many students had failed to earn a four-year degree within eight years of graduating high school. That amounts to between 1.3 million (based on those who took trig in high school) and 3.7 million students (those who took algebra II) in the 1990s and 2.2 million and 5.6 million in this decade.

Left at that, the figures reveal only how many college qualified and ambitious students did not earn a degree. But since students fail to move through the education system for many reasons, and the advisory committee sought to zero in only on those for whom finances were the deciding factor, the report goes a step further. It counts as having been turned away for financial reasons only the proportion of students that exceeds the rate at which similarly situated middle income students also failed to earn a degree.

"These estimates are extremely conservative, reflecting only those losses that occur among low- and moderate-income college-qualifed high school graduates and only to the extent that they are unable to enroll and persist in college at the same rates as their middle-income peers," the report says.

"These bachelor's degree losses will be difficult, if not impossible, to stem through strictly non-financial means," the report says. "Although academic preparation appears to have improved, early information and student expectations to complete college have certainly expanded, and financial aid forms and processes have been greatly simplified over the last decade and a half, bachelor's degree completion rates by family income show no sign of improving. Financial aid barriers in the form of record-level work and loan burden caused by rising college prices and insufficient need-based grant aid continue to undermine advances in other areas."

The findings lead the advisory committee to recommend several steps to political leaders and policy makers, including:

  • Reinvigorating the "access and persistence partnership" to increase need-based aid from all sources.
  • Restraining increases in the price of college and offset necessary increases with need-based aid.
  • Moderating the trend -- at all levels -- toward merit-based aid and increasing reliance on loans.
  • Reducing financial barriers to transfer from two-year to four-year colleges.
  • Strengthening early intervention programs for low and moderate income middle school students.
  • Investing in efficient and productive remediation in college.

The advisory committee presented its findings to members of Congress this week, and the two parties drew from the report what they wanted to.

Democratic leaders, who also held a news conference Wednesday at which they decried Republican policies on student aid and vowed major changes if they take over Congress in November's elections, said the advisory committee's report "focuses on how financial barriers are keeping millions of qualified students, especially low and moderate income students, from going to college." That report and another released Wednesday by the Campaign for America's Future, a group of prominent Democrats, "show that the skyrocketing costs of college continue to gouge the wallets of students and working families," said Rep. George Miller, the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

"Students are graduating with bigger college loan debts than ever before, and many can’t afford to go to college at all. These rising costs, coupled with stagnating family incomes and dwindling financial aid, have led to a serious crisis – one that hits low-and moderate-income students especially hard."

Republican leaders of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, however, read the report differently. Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-Calif.), the panel's chairman, said it offered "further evidence in favor of a renewed focus on hyperinflation in college costs." He said the report backed changes he and other Republicans have proposed to require colleges to report more information about their costs, aimed at helping "families overcome the chief barrier to college access: the ever-present increases in college costs."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Children Left Behind

  • College expense
  • Posted by WM on September 14, 2006 at 6:30am EDT
  • It appears to me that the more money the gov. makes available, the more expensive college gets. Is there some greed on the part of colleges?

  • The Dream Needs To Be Stronger than the Struggle
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , AVP for Scholarship and Grants at Indiana Wesleyan University on September 14, 2006 at 7:25am EDT
  • Doug,

    Thank you. Sincerely. Not only is this a timely brief but your staff also placed it first. And thanks to the Advisory Board which produced "Mortgaging Our Future." This report will likely be utilized by campuses nationwide. Although all datasets and interpretations are limited, and often overlook the humanities side of the equation, they can simultaneously give us keen insights into our strategic planning. As I've noted elsewhere, we need to keep in mind Thomas Mortensen's caution that "all demographics is local," the broad strokes in this report help us to see more clearly our own campus hues. At first glance I was rather surprised that The Lumina Foundation was not involved in this report. At second glance I was still surprised not to find Martha Lamkin or Susan Connor on the Advisory Board. Readers might want to go to Lumina's website and read the informative and more palatable studies, e.g., Barrier Busters (winter '06) and "Dream Detoured" (fall 05) and the regular Student Access and Success news. These articles prompt a surprise at third glance--the absence of anyone from community colleges (or AACC) on the Advisory Board (representing 11.6 million students). Perhaps upon a closer reading I'll find that some of these leaders were involved in the process. While there are noticeable gaps on the report’s board, I raise my keyboard and salute those who did serve. At first I was surprised that one of the ten advisory members was from the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising--far from mainstream America. Then I recalled several meetings with economically-challenged teens very interested in such a college track. We all have dreams and many include non-traditional tracks, and dreams need to be stronger than struggles. The work of this committee, by politicians on both sides of the aisle, is a great step in the process of helping to alleviate some struggles. I challenge colleagues reading this to attempt to hold conference-call sessions with strategic planning teams—inviting one of the advisory board members or shareholders in the report for a Q & A, or an author of one of the works in the report’s helpful bibliography. Also, I challenge Provosts and Deans to look more closely at E. Boyer's “domains of scholarship” and the need not only for the research of discovery, but of application and integration (see Braxton, Institutionalizing a Broader View of Scholarship Through Boyer's Four Domains, ASHE-ERIC). To support research that aids a further local understanding of the Mortgaging our Future report. And, for scholars to begin distilling such data into venues for lay audiences, whether educated or among the large minority who are not (see www.indwes.edu/buckcreek no. 14, 24-25 and others for my attempt to do this). Also, at the least, I challenge colleagues to point their peers to the report’s helpful charts, such as those on pages 26 and 39. In Mortensen form, they're potently simple. What is not clear is the "next step." The report includes some rather straightforward suggestions--but which agency picks up this weighty baton? Again, Thanks for your work on this committee, and for this report. jp

  • Price-cap higher-ed!
  • Posted by L.L. on September 14, 2006 at 7:30am EDT
  • " .. Restraining increases in the price of college .."

    Per Vedder (Ohio U.) -- giving more tax money to government-subsidized workers is like giving heroin to addicts. There is never enough.

    Peter McPherson, former president of Michigan State, gave MSU parents a written promise that costs would not be higher than the nominal rate of inflation. The faculty and staff had to work harder, but none appeared to die from that effort.

    Millions of Americans live within their budgets every day. They cut costs. They look for bargins.

    Example: how can certain academic departments justify top rates for freshman classes, in the face of thousands of unemployed PhDs? That runs counter to the basics of supply-and-demand. Can't they at least control their costs to the nominal rate of inflation? If Jane Lunch-bucket can?

  • Economics
  • Posted by RAJEEV BHARATHAN , Does merit has no say in higher education? at Government college, Thrissur,India on September 14, 2006 at 9:20am EDT
  • So many words have been written by scholars from the past to the present about equality of opportunity on the basis of merit. But nothing seems to have happened to the system. It still favours the class who has the purchasing power to get their children good education and better salaried jobs.Every where in the world, this is the same.Can't we do anythig to alter this sorry state of affairs?
    Rajeev Bharathan, India

  • Posted by Ray Dickerson , Retired on September 14, 2006 at 10:10am EDT
  • This study is more useless information aimed at making victims out of those economically challenged individuals who have been somehow been identified as "maybe" going to college. It is a statistical stretch, being polite.

    It would be best to look at BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) to see where future jobs in America lie. According to BLS, only 22% of all jobs require a college degree, e.g. nursing, medical doctor, law, engineering, while an estimated 30% of Americans possess college degrees. The jobs Americans can look forward to are truck driving, retail sales, construction trades, technical maintenance of machines, automobiles, planes, caring for the aged, etc.

    The greater shame is that students are told they can't succeed without a college degree, and this big lie about global competitiveness, which are aimed at perpetuating the education industry, which is self-serving and not very good at what they do, once again being kind.

    Students that are truly college material will find a way to pay for college. The others, probably are just part of the college mill, and shouldn't be going anyway; they're the ones who should be trained for the jobs of the future mentioned above.
    Check with the BLS. Only one of the top ten jobs of the future in terms of numbers requires a degree.

    Most employers can train any high school graduate within thirty days to do the same job a college takes 4 or 5 years to complete.

    The motivations behind this article strike me as being social/political. Also, colleges are running out of post baby-boom material. What are they to do!!!!

  • Workers, not thinkers
  • Posted by Michael on September 14, 2006 at 10:30am EDT
  • In a few decades the "Children Left Behind" will be the "Society Left Behind."

    American leadership --across all quarters-- has neither the interest nor willingness to provide "reasonable and affordable" access to education for its citizens.

    In fact, it can be argued that as much as it looks good on paper that our democratic underpinnings strive for equal and universal education, our capitalist economic structure does not support that philosophy.

    Can you imagine ... instead of only 28% of the working population having a Bachelor's degree, every worker had one. Instead of 17% of the workforce having a Masters, every worker had one ... we don't even want to consider the possibilities at the PhD level.

    After all, with the potential for all those educated people to be out there in the marketplace, who the hell is going to service the economy?

  • Access
  • Posted by Leo Kornfeld on September 14, 2006 at 12:00pm EDT
  • The report confirms other similar reports which clearly indicate that the percentage of qualified students from low income families is shockingly lower than students from middle and upper income families. This is a NATIONAL disaster.

    There is no single bullet which will solve the problem. However one major problem is the financial aid system which needs to be overhauled. The problems there are many:

    -The HEA was launched in 1965 focusing on providing assistance to 18 year old high school grads. However today, the majority of students in higher ed are independent students, A different population with different needs

    -The system is just too complicated- students and parents are confused

    -The FAFSA form is too complicated and turns off many qualified studetns particularly from low income families. If a family has no assets, the form could possibly be eliminated and more reliance put on data from the IRS
    -Loans scare off students from low income families Until more dollars become available for grants , students from low income families need more hands on support

    The above and many other reasons call for an overhaul of the financial aid system with "out of the box;' thinking.

  • Posted by Robert Oliphant on September 14, 2006 at 12:31pm EDT
  • Children Left Behind should be retitled "2-year community college transfers left unrecognized." . . . Even Yale now hands out more bachelor's degrees each year than it admits entering freshmen, as indicated by NCES figures and by Barron's Profiles of American Colleges. So Where do these "phantom baccalaureates" come from? And why professional doomsayers ignore what is a growing re-democratization of American commodity education?

  • Posted by Mike , Professor at Centre College on September 14, 2006 at 12:46pm EDT
  • This seems poorly designed. When I was in high school I said on a survey that I wanted to be a nuclear engineer. I am not now. So, I guess I've been left behind too.

    That our economy has been so successful despite the failures of the education system says wonders about the forces that result in prosperity. It seems to me that education is overrated and freedom and markets are under-rated.

    This report will give many of you a reason to whine even louder about how unfair our society is - but I really do not think there is anything groundbreaking in it.

  • I'm from low income - and have a MBA
  • Posted by SER on September 14, 2006 at 2:20pm EDT
  • I totally agree with Ray's statement:

    "Students that are truly college material will find a way to pay for college."

    I understand the complexities of this issue, and agree with certain arguments from both sides of the line. But I also know that if a young high school grad truly wanted to pursue a bachelors degree in some form (be it enrolling straightway into a 4-yr school or into a comm college), he or she would do just that.

    Coming out of high school, my parents were divorced, my mom didn't financially support the family, my father was laid off since I was in the 10th grade, and me and my mentally handicapped brother were living at home with dad, making due with his military retirement. We were low income. Because of everything going on in my home, I worked every day after school from 4pm to 11pm to buy my own clothes, get my own haircuts, etc.

    My grades suffered. I barely got a 2.5 in HS. I was no math rockstar, and my strongpoints were mediocre by most standards. Got a 1090 on my SATS, again not stunning. Knowing my family and academic situation, my HS counselor advised me against applying to a 4-yr college, instead suggesting a 2-yr.

    I applied anyway, getting accepted into 2 of 6 schools. When the financial aid award arrived at my home, I realized I wouldn't have enough to attend. So I called the fin aid director himself, who upped the award.

    Forewent HS prom to buy my one-way ticket to the college, on the opposite coast from my home. Worked all through school to support myself and my dream of a degree. Gave blood, donated plasma, did whatever it took to pay the bills. When the money situation almost reach its end, I enlisted in the Army Reserve in order to get a monthly GI Bill payment - and have repaid my debt as an Iraqi Freedom veteran.

    Long story short, got my degree, then went on to get a grad degree, now make decent money. Yeah, I've got loans to pay - knowledge costs, but it pays for itself!

    My point is, the opportunities are out there. If you're lower income, maybe you have to work a little harder. Maybe you go to a state school, instead of the pricey private college. I had broke/poor buddies in college that worked eons harder than I did to make it. Now they've made it.

    I'm all for support for 'disadvantaged' persons, hell, I'm in that demographic. But if a young HS grad can't creatively find the resources to make their dreams come true, then maybe they're not evolutionarily cut out for that path, at least not yet. If they truly want it, they'll find a way to get it. I wanted it, went out and got it, and now my kids will be on the other side of the line, scrutinized for having unfair access to higher learning. Go figure!

  • Some costs are beyond control
  • Posted by Damon D. Hickey on September 14, 2006 at 2:20pm EDT
  • I know that increases in the cost of library materials don't account for all of the increase in college costs, but they play a part. The rate of inflation, especially for scholarly journals, has been many times the general rate of inflation for the past 30 years. Let's use the right term: price gouging. Commercial publishers do it, and a number of high-profile professional associations, especially in the sciences (and especially in chemistry) follow suit. And these very people scream bloody murder at the prospect of federal legislation to require that the results of federally-funded research be made available at no cost within 6 months of publication. The military-industrial-research-education complex is alive and well, and its price gouging is at least partly responsible for college costs that many deserving American young people cannot afford to pay.

  • Posted by Marvin McConoughey on October 28, 2006 at 9:20pm EDT
  • It is plausible that some few students are unable to find a way to go to college despite their best efforts. I believe that they are very few in numbers and percentage of high school graduates.

    Vast and overlapping tiers of scholarships now exist with multiple means of access: from the internet, to libraries, to specialized publications, to academic advisers. College tuition discounts for able but poor students are legion. If one college does not fit, hundreds more exist. For even less money a national web of community colleges exist.

    A poor but ambitious student can pursue good grades, which add little cost to a high school education. Or he can join the Air Force, the Marines, the Navy, or the Coast Guard and get both income and help toward a college degree. I got two degrees in the Air Force and could have had added subsidized post-career education had I wished.

    Rather than indulge in tortuous statistical manipulation, the study authors would do better to do a qualitative investigation of youth who allege they cannot enter college. Why not? What specifics prohibit hard working students who give it their all from finding a way to enter college?