AFT - Pubs-Reports - On Campus - February 2007

Home > Publications > On Campus > February 2007 >

Campus Clips

Public university aid policies foster inequities

A new report from the Education Trust targets practices at flagship institutions that are resulting in a shift of resources from low-income students, who need financial help in order to attend, to upper-income students who would enroll in these universities whether or not they receive aid.

Between 1995 and 2003, the report shows, flagship and other research-extensive public universities decreased grant aid by 13 percent for students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less, while they increased aid to students from families who make more than $100,000 by 406 percent. In fact, the average institutional grant aid to students from families earning over $100,000 annually—$3,823—is actually higher than the average grant awarded to low- or middle-income students.

Why are institutions doing this? The authors of the report, Danette Gerald and Kati Haycock, suggest that it’s the pursuit of high grades in the college ranking guides that is driving aid policies. The authors provide a ranking system of their own that grades the 50 flagships on some broad indicators—access for minority and low-income students, progress on access over the last 14 years, students’ success as measured by graduation rates after six years, and change in access and success of minority students from 1986 to 2005.

Overall, institutions need to improve a lot. On the measure of minority access, for example, the researchers compared the percentage of African-American, Latino and Native American freshmen enrolled in the fall of 2004 with the percentage in these student groups who graduated three months earlier. In this index, 27 institutions received F’s. Six earned A’s—the universities of Alaska (Fairbanks), Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia University. Over the past 14 years, 15 institutions improved their performance on this measure, while 35 experienced declines.

On the issue of low-income access, Gerald and Haycock looked at the number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled at the flagships, compared with the number enrolled at all other state colleges and universities. For this measure, seven flagships got A’s and 26 received F’s. In terms of progress made since 1992, 44 institutions showed a decline.

One brighter spot in the picture was how institutions perform with the students they do accept. In their six-year graduation rates for minority and low-income students, most institutions performed favorably. This suggests what a boon it would be for their states’ minority and low-income students if they would serve those populations better.

The report is called “Engines of Inequality: Diminishing Equity in the Nation’s Premier Public Universities” and it is available at www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/.

American Academic

American Educator

American Teacher

AFT On Campus

PSRP Reporter

Public Employee Advocate

Healthwire

AFT Retirees E-news

E-Mail Newsletters

Other Publications

States face day of reckoning

A crisis has overtaken American higher education, says a blue ribbon, bipartisan panel of state legislators. The U.S. system used to be the premier system in the world; now, other states outperform and outrank us. What is more, the commission says in its report, “Transforming Higher Education: National Imperative—State Responsibility,” it’s becoming increasingly difficult for students to gain access to college, find a way to pay for it and graduate without being encumbered by nearly $20,000 of debt.

The solution, says the commission, appointed last year by the National Conference of State Legislatures, is for states to shoulder their $70 billion responsibility, reinvest in and reenergize higher education, and do so before federal intervention occurs. State legislatures tend to make decisions in response to budget crises or policy fads, says the report. Or, they listen to so many decision-makers—governors, legislators, university leaders, state higher education executive officers, and governing board members—that they fail to collaborate and coordinate with a vision.

The commission of six Republicans and six Democrats was deeply influenced by Thomas Friedman’s recent book, The World is Flat, they write in the introduction. They are convinced that the reason the U.S. is losing its edge is because “it has failed to focus on how higher education reenergizes U.S. competitiveness and revitalizes the states.”

Those who work in higher education will be relieved to know that the commission’s purpose “is not to lay blame. We do not intend to indict institutions of higher education or the dedicated staff who work in them.” Instead, it seeks to drive higher education high up on the list as a state legislative priority, and motivate states to think about reform to improve economic development and the success of residents.

The commission makes 15 recommendations, including:

■ defining goals, strengths and weaknesses;

■ identifying demographic trends for the next 30 years;

■ rethinking funding and student aid to help reduce borrowing and debt;

■ holding institutions accountable for their performance;

■ encouraging partnerships and transforming the 12th grade; and

■ embracing innovation and focusing on productivity.

For more information, go to www.ncsl.org.

American Federation of Teachers | 555 New Jersey Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001