Search News


Browse Archives

News

Good Money After ... Mediocre?

January 29, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The disconnect could not have been more glaring. As the House of Representatives passed an economic stimulus package on Wednesday that would pour tens of billions of dollars into higher education, through spending on research, school and college infrastructure, and aid to states to ward off cuts in education budgets, leading policy makers gathered just a few blocks away to discuss K-12 and higher education policy in the Obama administration.

And while the conversation did not in most cases focus on the stimulus package, the gist of the discussions -- that state and federal decision makers have largely missed the mark in much of their recent policy making about higher education -- left the unmistakable impression that the economic package, while perhaps necessary from a purely economic standpoint, would not necessarily be the best use of federal education dollars.

The Educational Policy Institute's National Capital Summit, "Education and the New Administration," brought together federal and state officials, association leaders, analysts and others to talk about how the Obama team would be likely to deal with issues along the educational pipeline, from early childhood education through higher education. The meeting took place almost literally in the shadow of the Capitol building, where the House was voting largely along party lines (with 11 Democrats joining all 177 Republicans in opposing the measure) to approve an $819 billion package of spending and tax cuts designed to stimulate the moribund economy.

The economic stimulus package was not formally on the agenda for the meeting, the higher ed portions of which focused on ensuring students' access to and success in college, and making college affordable. But as the meeting's speakers talked about the state and federal policies that have (and haven't) worked thus far in attacking what James E. Applegate called the "stunningly big" problem of getting 12-15 million additional students some kind of postsecondary credential in the coming years, it was hard to escape the feeling that the massive dollars the government is preparing to pour into higher education would largely reinforce existing policies whose wisdom the experts questioned.

Applegate, a longtime higher education official in Kentucky and now a senior vice president at the Lumina Foundation for Education, bemoaned the fact that most federal and state aid to colleges was based purely on the number of students they enrolled, not on how the students fared once there. Unless and until that changes, he said, any significant new money that flows to states for higher education, or directly to colleges, is unlikely to compel institutions to focus more on ensuring that their students succeed. The stimulus package would, as currently constructed, send at least $39 billion, and as much as $15 billion more, to states to fill gaps in their budgets for public schools and public higher education, without any major strings attached for how those funds are spent.

"We need to shift our reward structure, so that states and the federal government say, We're going to put a priority on student completion, not student enrollment," he said. "I'd like to see states saying, 'We're not going to fund you on [full-time enrollments] any more,' so that discretionary money is driven a great deal by success instead of enrollment. If we could get that pulled off in 50 states, that'd be a good first step."

Arthur Hauptman, a financial aid consultant, questioned the wisdom of pouring significantly more money into the Pell Grant Program, as the stimulus package would do. Among other things, as he has argued previously, increasing the maximum Pell Grant makes many new students with family incomes above $40,000 eligible for small awards, diminishing the overall impact of the funds in encouraging students to go to college who otherwise wouldn't have. Hauptman also is concerned that colleges whose students receive extra Pell funds will use it to replace institutional aid funds they would have provided, rather than reducing the students' loan burdens.

In addition, making the higher education tax credits refundable (so that they are available to families that pay less in taxes than they would receive in education tax breaks), as both the House and Senate stimulus bills would do, makes the tax breaks less useful as a tool for helping middle-income families and increases the overlap with the Pell program, Hauptman said.

Despite those and other concerns expressed at the policy institute's forum, college and student groups came out of the woodwork Wednesday to cheer the House passage of the stimulus legislation, which is not surprising given the dire financial situation that many institutions are in, and the additional strain the economic downturn is putting on families' ability to afford college.

And even as they fought off Republican criticism of the legislation, Democratic supporters of the bill in Congress acknowledged its imperfections, or at least the extent to which -- as analysts like Hauptman and Applegate suggested -- it won't necessarily further all of the policy goals they might like.

On a call with reporters Wednesday before the House vote, Rep. George Miller, the California Democrat who heads the House Education and Labor Committee, said he recognized, for instance, that the stimulus bill would do little to deal with the House's concerns about whether colleges were raising tuition too fast -- an issue that lawmakers tried to confront in last year's renewal of the Higher Education Act. "I suspect the dire economic condition of the states will overwhelm" steps Congress took last year to punish states that cut their funding for higher education and to try to embarrass colleges that raise their prices the most.

"I would hope that some of this money [Congress plans to send to the states for education] might lead them to reconsider tuition increases," Miller said. And while Congress plans to continue its oversight of how colleges spend their money, he said, the stimulus bill may be an exception, because "we have to treat this as an emergency."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Good Money After ... Mediocre?

  • Posted by Anonymous on January 29, 2009 at 9:35am EST
  • Families who make $40,000 are not rolling in dough.

    Get real.

  • appropriate headline
  • Posted by finaidfollies on January 29, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Among other things, the stimulus bill allocates $79 billion to help states 'prevent layoffs of teachers, classroom aides, school meal providers, and other jobs in jeopardy by stabilizing funding for early education programs, schools, and colleges.' (From the Committee on Education and Labor web site)

    One of the most effective stimulus programs might be a combined Econ 101/Math for Dummies, mandatory for legislators. Math so that the legislator/dummy can understand the cost of the money that's being allocated. Econ so that they can understand:

    MONEY IS FUNGIBLE.

    If this largesse is bestowed on states, the states have that much less incentive to innovate, try new approaches, find ways to do more with less.

    Then again, the states would become even more beholden to Washington. So a third course, Ethics, might also be in order.

    Good money after mediocre, indeed.

  • Question
  • Posted by Wossamotta U. on January 29, 2009 at 10:25am EST
  • Honest question: Does anyone know what sorts of conflict of interest mechanisms are being discussed to keep academic standards high, if Mr. Applegate's success-based funding were to be implemented? It seems as though rewarding graduation rate would only exacerbate the grade inflation problem, and faculty members would be placed in even tougher positions when calling out academic integrity issues. I would love to see this idea work via expanded academic assistance programs and better-funded, more intentional student development programs, but the cheaper, easier way here is a primrose path.

  • Posted by Public Administrator on January 29, 2009 at 10:25am EST
  • Shame on George Miller and the House Democrats generally for thinking that an emergency is an excuse for throwing away common sense as well as money. An emergency is a great time to enact reforms. Now is the time to get American higher education back on track by requiring that the massive new funding through the states be used for student affordability and retention, not to reinforce skybox mentalities bent on prestige and rankings. As for Pell Grants, Congress should require a maintenance-of-effort on institutional aid for Pell recipients to prevent those funds, too, from being dissipated in an orgy of bailouts for a generation of misguided college leadership.

  • Posted by The Newly Minted Middle Class on January 29, 2009 at 10:25am EST
  • Anonymous is right. A $40,000 family income isn't enough to send a kid to college, let alone 2 or 3 kids, and even a small grant can make a big difference.

    I had as much institutional aid as a person could get at my college, but I still needed my Pell grant to buy books since every cent of my Stafford loan went towards room and board. The extra $400 a year let me avoid commercial loans without having to seek employment above and beyond my $6/hour work-study job.

  • See independent reviews of this article on NewsTrust.net
  • Posted by Dale Penn , Editor at NewsTrust.net on January 29, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • NewsTrust.net, a non-profit organization funded in part by the MacArthur Foundation, seeks out good journalism on all topics. This article has been selected for review during the coming week's focus on the topic of education in association with Ashoka.org and received a high initial rating.

    Please visit http://newstrust.net/stories/36106?expand=true to see reviews of this story and www.newstrust.org/education to follow our education topic initiative.

    Dale Penn
    NewsTrust.net
    Editor
    Co-Host, Education topic

  • Tax Credits
  • Posted by Anonymous2 on January 29, 2009 at 12:35pm EST
  • Lest we be too revisionist in our criticism of the poor receiving Hope Scholarship Tax Credits as diluting the targeting of "middle-class" tax credits, recall that President Clinton's original proposal was in support of "universal" access to community college through tax credits. Refundability was part of that plan until the Treasury Department objected. The "middle class" label was adopted after excluding the poor from the program as a rationalization, much like, shall we say, "putting lipstick on a pig."

    So let's not ring our hands too much when stimulus funds mess up our carefully crafted "middle-class” tax program. The poor families need and deserve the help.

  • Public Administrator
  • Posted by Financial Aid Administrator on January 29, 2009 at 3:05pm EST
  • I agree with your comments in regard to reform. There are efficiencies in the system which have yet to be realized and they should be pursued regardless of bailout money.

    As far as maintenance of effort for Pell Grants there is plenty of that. There are not many grant programs that you can name with more maintenance of effort then Pell. Some of the efficiencies could be realized with FAFSA Simplification and IRS matching of income. Some of the BO money should be spent on that.

  • Efficiencies
  • Posted by Jerry in LA on January 29, 2009 at 4:40pm EST
  • FAFSA Simplification and IRS matching of income has already taken place - the proposal that is. It was unveiled by Dept of Ed officials in the fall. Seemed to be a huge improvement to most I spoke to.

    I'm not sure where it stands now. I guess the proposal is to be reviewed by the new Ed leadership and/or is awaiting congressional approval. I'm sure others know more than I.

    It would be nice if we could at least get this done.

  • Academic Standards, Pell Grants
  • Posted by Public Administrator on January 29, 2009 at 8:05pm EST
  • Good question above about what happens to standards if state and federal support starts to reward retention and graduation. But as we deal with that question, we should recognize that many students are not completing their studies because of affordability problems and a lack of opportunity to take necessary courses, not because of high academic standards.

    As to Pell grants, two commenters suggest that Pell grants are additive to institutional aid; but it is the policy of hundreds of public and private institutions (often noted on schools' webpages) that Pell and other government aid customarily reduces institutional aid. So much the better when aid is additive, but often it is not, as many institutions insist on their prerogatives to pursue such offset policies even if it frustrates the purpose of the Pell program. In times of fiscal stress, institutions will be saving dollars wherever they can, including reducing institutional aid for students getting Pell grant increases. I've done it myself as an administrator, because there is no federal prohibition against it.

  • Two Comments
  • Posted by dundermifflin on January 30, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • Jerry, FAFSA simplification has not happened yet, it is still being discussed, but it can't come soon enough.

    Public admin, it is true that many colleges retain the right to protect there institutional money when there are increases to federal money, but also they just tend to turn around a give to another student in many cases. Further, the feds have a rule as well...all aid from all resources cannot exceed cost, and if it does you must reduce federal need based aid. Sauce for the goose...

  • Legal Not Ethical
  • Posted by Public Administrator on January 30, 2009 at 10:55am EST
  • Some of us may think it's ethical, because it's legal and a common practice, to use the occasion of increased government aid to shift institutional aid from the needy to the non-needy, but I don't. Nor do I think it's ethical to cut grant aid to needy students by maxing the students out on loans, and then tell them that the federal overaward rules forced us to cut grants. No federal rules force us to cut grants rather than loans. Better that we tell students and families the truth about how we package aid, or is that even considered these days? Matthew Quirk caught the spirit of this generation of college leadership with his "The Best Class Money Can Buy" at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/financial-aid-leveraging

  • money for completion rates
  • Posted by Sione Aeschliman on January 30, 2009 at 2:30pm EST
  • Wossamotta and Public Admin both raise valid points, but what's most concerning to me about the idea of basing federal money on completion rates is this: not all students WANT to earn a degree. This is especially true at community colleges.

    To define "success" solely in terms of graduation rates would be a huge mistake in my opinion. Even at large state universities, students' educational goals vary widely; some want only to take a few classes for personal or professional development, others want to transfer after a few terms, and in cases like these the students' educational goals are met without ever coming near to completing a degree or certification program.

    Do we really want to deny federal funding to institutions who serve these populations?