Discounting reduces access for the poor

Another report has come out showing the misguided direction of student aid policy. The Lumina Foundation looks at tuition discounting and finds it failing at the macro level. While some colleges benefit from using institutional aid to boost enrollment and revenue, the report found the practice “appears to limit affordability and choice for many low-income students” nationwide, without always fulfilling its stated purposes.

As reported in September’s AFT On Campus, U.S. Education Department data show that although all students have received institutional aid increases, funds have flowed more quickly to the affluent. In 1995, dependent public college students below $20,000 annual family income received 3.5 times more institutional aid than students above $100,000; by 1999, that ratio had dropped to 1.35. During the same period at private colleges, disadvantaged students dropped from near parity to 29 percent less aid.

Low-income students lose in this zero sum game. As colleges increase tuition, they create a $40,000 benchmark: Dependent students above that income level see increases in aid exceeding the tuition increase, while students below that mark see only two-thirds of the tuition increase covered by the aid package.

This relative decrease in aid has reduced the proportion of low-income students at college. From 1995 to 1999, public colleges reduced aid to low-income students by 16.2 percent and saw a 7.3 percent drop in low-income student enrollment. Private colleges dropped aid by 16 percent and saw an 8.7 percent enrollment dip.

Even though targeted for discounts, students from $80,000+ income groups joined low-income students in leaving private colleges. Also, those colleges only found a 0.25 percent increase in enrollment for students from the $40,000 to $80,000 income range, another group heavily targeted for discounts. Subsequently, many institutions’ net revenues declined. The report mentions a 2000 study showing that colleges offering the largest discounts lost an average of $307 per student.

The report also finds that discounting does not significantly increase the academic quality of the student body. Using SAT data from 1995 and 1999, Davis showed that less than one-fifth of colleges increased their student body’s median verbal score by 11 points or more, and only 55 percent showed any increase. The 2000 study cited above also showed that colleges with the largest tuition discounts saw no median score increase.

To view “Unintended Consequences of Tuition Discounting,” visit www.luminafoundation.org/ and click on Publications.
 

Citizenship is a learned skill

The current crop of young adults ages 15 to 26 is disengaged from the political process and the demands of citizenship, a new survey shows. Dubbed the DotNets by the survey authors, this group lacks the knowledge for self-government and has a limited appreciation of American democracy.

More of them can name the hometown of “The Simpsons” cartoon family or who won on “American Idol” than can identify the political affiliation of their governor or the majority in their state legislature, according to “Citizenship: A Challenge for All Generations.”

“There has been a breakdown in how older generations pass on the values of democracy to younger Americans,” the survey warns. For example, interviewers asked DotNets and people over age 26 what makes a good citizen. “Obeying the law,” said 87 percent of DotNets and 95 percent of over-26ers; “voting,” said 66 percent of DotNets and 83 percent of older people; and “paying attention to government and politics,” said 54 percent of DotNets but 78 percent of the older respondents.

The survey is one of the first products of the Representative Democracy in America Project, a new federally funded partnership among the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Center for Civic Education and the Center on Congress at Indiana University. Far from wanting to pick on today’s young people, the project’s aim is to improve the public’s understanding of democracy and civic participation. What the project finds is that civics education makes a significant difference (see chart). Although respondents who say they have taken a civics course in high school also tend to have more college-level education, even those who have only completed high school rate civic participation higher if they have studied government.

The project recommends that all states review their civic education requirements, standards and assessments to produce better informed citizens. The report can be downloaded from www.ncsl.org/programs.

A resource to help states and institutions review their approaches to teaching about democracy was released in September by the Albert Shanker Institute. Called Education for Democracy, it calls on schools “to purposely impart to their students the learning necessary for an informed, reasoned allegiance to the ideals of a free society.” The 40-page statement, endorsed by a range of prominent Americans, calls for expanded studies in history, civics and the humanities. It notes that American textbooks often depict U.S. history in an unduly negative light, yet students must have a full understanding of our political system, warts and all.

“We want knowledgeable students who will end up committed to a system that acknowledges weaknesses and tries to fix them, while valuing democracy and wanting to extend it,” said AFT president Sandra Feldman. To download the statement, go to http://www.ashankerinst.org/.