Unit 3: The College Board: Trends in College Pricing

When many of us think of The College Board, the image of college admissions and assessment usually comes to mind. This organization, however, can also be considered an opinion leader in higher education finance. The College Board is a non-profit organization whose agenda is to provide information that connects potential students to college success and opportunity (The College Board, 2009). College bound high school seniors, for example, look to The College Board for information on the various aspects of going to college including the costs. Potential college students consider the College Board to be an opinion leader. This organization also provides data and other reference information that is useful to those who work in many aspects of higher education including finance - making it an opinion leader for them as well.

The College Board (2009) publishes an annual report Trends in College Pricing that provides "extensive data describing the variety of college prices in the U.S. and tracks those costs over time" (p. 4). The intended audience for this report are the consumers of higher education such as high school seniors (and their parents). Considering the country's current economic circumstances, however, the information offered in this report can be of particular interest for not only potential students but also college and university chief financial officers as well. The 2009-2010 issue of Trends in College Pricing, for example, provides insight into how colleges and universities are grappling with the recent economic pressures. The report includes published tuition prices for undergraduate education, net prices, and intuitions' non-tuition revenues just to name a few of the areas. The following are just a few snippets of the report that relates to our discussion on cost disease in higher education.

Tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities have risen at an annual rate of 4.9% per year beyond the general inflation rate from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 (The College Board, 2009). In-state tuition and fees at public four-year institutions, for example, was reported to be 6.5% higher than in 2008-2009 while public two-year colleges' in-state tuition and fees was 7.3% higher than 2008-2009. Not-for-profit four-year institutions experienced a 4.4% increase while for-profit four-year colleges and universities had a 6.5% increase. Further, the "average published tuition and fees for public four-year colleges and universities in 2009-2010 ranged from $5,802 in the South to $9,391 in New England" (p. 10). The Middle States Region average rate for tuition and fees was reported to be $2,180. In addition to the increases in tuition and fees, state appropriations declined from 82.2 billion in 2007-2008 to 78.5 billion to in 2008-2009. This is a 12% drop from previous years. This type of information can help guide potential students as to what type of college or university and geographical area they can afford. College and university chief financial officers can also use this information in their comparative studies and in budget planning. That is, chief financial officers and other college administrators can use the trends mentioned in this report to predict what may occur in the next fiscal year and plan appropriately for it.

The report also included some interesting information on enrollment trends that can be useful to parents, students, and college administrators. According to the report, "the percentage of first time student undergraduate enrollment in public colleges and universities declined from 81% to 76% between 1990 and 2007" (p. 17). In contrast, first-time student enrollment in for-profit institutions grew from 2% in 1990 to 8% in 2007. Enrollment in non-profit institutions also grew "from 2% in 1990 to 10% in 2007" (p. 17). This type of information usually draws the attention of high school students and their parents. These individuals, for example, could see the enrollment trends presented in this report as a signal that there may be problems with public colleges and universities and consider enrolling in the for-profit or non-profit institutions. Chief financial officers and other administrators in postsecondary institutions can also use this type of information to determine the changes and trends in the consumer market. This information can then be used in making budget decisions and in strategic planning.

The College Board's Trends in College Pricing is an extensive and informative report. Even though the information offered in this report is designed to assist potential students as consumers of higher education, chief financial officers in colleges and universities can certainly benefit from this information as well. It provides trends and projections that can serve as a reference for institutions especially in planning and research. Finally, the College Board emphasizes researching and tracking data associated with enrollment and college costs. It is this experience that helps make the organization an opinion leader in higher education finance.

References

The College Board (2009). Trends in college pricing. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http://www.trends-collegeboard.com/college_pricing/pdf/2009_Trends_College_Pricing.pdf

Unit 3: National Education Association (NEA)

Having been a teacher in the public school system, I was a member of the National Education Association (NEA). As a mater of fact, it was a required membership for the first year employees of the district where I was employed. From that time up until recently, I thought the NEA was an organization that simply protected k-12 school teachers and employees and had an influence in policy only in the K-12 sector of education. As it turns out, not only does the NEA have an influential voice in the K-12 sector but also in higher education.

By NEA's (2009) own admission, "We, the members of the National Education Association of the United States, are the voice of education professionals. Our work is fundamental to the nation, and we accept the profound trust placed in us." Therefore, NEA's agenda is to use its voice in higher education as an advocate for professionals within higher education. "Today, NEA is the largest college and university faculty and staff organization in the United States, representing more than 200,000 higher education employees in public as well as private institutions nationwide" (NEA, 2009). To further describe NEA's important role as an "opinion leader" in higher education finance: "On Capitol Hill, NEA lobbyists work effectively for increased financial support for higher education, including reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the mainstay of higher education funding, and for increased funding for research. In addition, NEA lobbyists monitor legislation on issues such as tax reform, retirement, health care, intellectual property, distance education, internationalization, and other subjects that have a significant impact on all higher education personnel" (NEA, 2009).

The NEA newsletter, The NEA Higher Education Advocate, is published six times per year in newsletter format. It highlights trends, legislation, resource material, and local, state, and national news in post-secondary education. A "Special Salary Issue" of the newsletter was released this year. This issue highlighted that the average salary for faculty over a ten year period, 1996-2006, increased less than .5%. The Advocate stated that this trend is a replica of the changes in state and local appropriations. Reports like this one publicize the salary issues that are also a part of higher ed finance. Since NEA advocates for professional higher education employees, the salaries of these employees is just one of the financial aspects that this organization speaks on behalf of.

Recession salaries. (2009). NEA Higher Education Advocate. Retreived on October 28, 2009, from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE_ADV_09_SpecialFull.pdf

Unit 3: The Department of Education: Postsecondary Institutions and Price of Attendance in the United States

Perhaps one of the most recognized opinion leader in higher education finance as well as other areas of education is the federal government. Through the Department of Education, programs such as the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Systems (IPEDS) provides data and reports on the various areas of higher education free of charge to the public. The reports are generally presented in a straight forward and objective manner. The Department of Education's agenda is simply to provide the public and governmental agencies with information about the various areas of education. With this being said, a great deal of time and effort is placed on data collection and analysis thus making the Department of Education an opinion leader. Governmental agencies, for example, uses the data to determine if postsecondary and other areas of education are meeting regulations while the general public uses the information for research purposes and to obtain a snapshot of our educational system.

The Department of Education's Latest Report

The Department of Education's (2009) latest report Postsecondary Institutions and Price Attendance in the United States: Fall 2008, Degrees and Other Awards Conferred 2007-2008, and 12 Month Enrollment is directed towards federal and state governments as well as college and university administration including chief financial officers at Title IV institutions. This comprehensive report offers data obtained from Title IV institutions. The following are some highlights relevant to higher education finance and our class discussions.

During 2008-09, it was the private-for-profit institutions that reported the highest overall price of attendance for first-time undergraduate degree-seeking students living on campus. The average costs of attendance for private-for-profit institutions was $35,021. This is slightly higher than the not-for-profit private four-year institutions price of attendance for first-time undergraduate degree-seeking students living on campus which was $32,670. The lowest overall price of attendance was reported by public four-year institutions. The average cost of attendance for in-state, first-time, undergraduate students living on campus was $17,655 and for out-of-state students the cost was $26,219. This type of information provides chief financial officers with an overall national view of the price of attendance. Chief financial officers along with other college administrators, for example, could use this information to compare their costs with the national average.

On the non-financial side, the report provided some interesting data on enrollment in Title IV institutions. This is just a snippet of the non-financial information provided in the report. According to the report, "41 percent of four-year Title IV institutions offered a bachelor's degree or higher, 14 percent reported offering just a bachelor's degree, and 19 percent reported offering the associates as their highest degree" (p. 5). In addition, 4-year Title IV institutions "awarded 2 million degrees while 2-year institutions reported awarding almost 572, 000 degrees" (p. 5). State and federal appropriations are based on this type of data making the report of great interest to the federal government and of course to chief financial officers at colleges and universities.

Even though this posting only offers snippets of the Postsecondary Institutions and Price Attendance in the United States: Fall 2008, Degrees and Other Rewards 2007-2008, and 12-Month Enrollment report, it provides a comprehensive look at institutions that receive Title IV funds and would be a good read for those working in the field of higher education finance. The federal government can use the information presented in the report to determine if Title IV institutions are meeting guidelines.

Conclusion

It is felt that the Department of Education offers a valuable service to our society. The information given in this report along with others provide the public and the government with vital information about our entire educational system. The Department of Education employs professionals in the field of education many who have training and experience in higher education finance. With this being said, it stands to reason that the Department of Education can certainly be considered an opinion leader in higher education finance.

Reference

U.S. Department of Education (2009, October). Postsecondary institutions and price attendance in the United States: Fall 2008, degrees and other other awards conferred 2007-08 , and 12 month enrollment. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009165.pdf

Unit 3: Council for Opportunity in Education

The Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), founded in 1981, is a non-profit organization that works to "further the expansion of educational opportunities" to low-income students. In conjunction with colleges and universities that host TRIO programs, the organization endeavors to help students overcome "class, social, academic, and cultural barriers" (COE, 2009). With accessibility being one of the key focuses of higher education today, COE serves as a major speaker for the needs of low-income students as well as a help to ensure that these students "enter college and graduate." Accessibility issues make COE a very prevalent voice. Because COE is an organization mostly interested in furthering the interests of low-income students, it values their needs. "As mandated by Congress, two-thirds of the students served must come from families with incomes under $33,000, where neither parent graduated from college. More than 2,800 TRIO Programs currently serve nearly one million low-income students" (COE, 2009).

COE publishes a Fair Share State Report that displays the "budgetary responsibility needed for the Council to operate based on the relative number of TRIO projects in an area" (COE, 2009). It shows all sources of income to COE for each state. These sources include membership fees, donations, and state appropriations which all help to make college possible for low-income students.

Because COE seeks to provide financial resources that could be the determining factor for getting and keeping low-income students, they have a voice in deciding which student services programs are worthy of funding. The types of programs that COE finances are another source of "free" money for students who suffer "class, social, academic, and cultural barriers" because of their income status. Some Student Support Services programs provide money for gas, babysitting, and other services that low income students cannot otherwise afford AND attend school. COE makes a way for this and even sponsors field trips for students to gain cultural exposure. The tutoring that assists students in learning can also be through Student Support Services by COE. While most other financial aid money can only be used for tuition, fees, and books, COE has the flexibility to pay for those "costs" that have to be covered in order for a low-income student to go to college and succeed.

The Council for Opportunity in Education (2009). Retrieved on October, 21, 2009, from http://www.coenet.us//ecm/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home

Solutions for the Future

Solutions for Our Future is a national project to increase awareness of the impact that higher education has on society by preparing people to solve world problems and teaching the people that will change the world. Launched on 2006 the project is sponsored by the American Council on Education on behalf of public and private colleges, community and business partners and Campus Compact.

The main reason for launching the project was to impress upon the public the need to invest in human capital to meet the economic, social, and global challenges the country is facing. The project places at the forefront of its purpose investment in higher education. Funding reductions for higher education at both the state and federal level have forced increases in tuition and cuts in access at a time when American can ill afford to fall further behind other countries in education. Funding should be increased because higher education generates social and economic returns for the country. Students that earn bachelor’s degrees generally earn higher salaries, contribute more to the tax base, are less likely to be unemployed, in jail, or dependent on public assistance.

Three goals for the project are:

1. Not only increase the public’s awareness of the contributions of colleges and universities to our collective well-being, but to also see that that awareness is reflected in public discourse.
2. Increase support for higher education as a public policy priority.
3. Ensure that each campus is able to fully engage in doing its part to see that higher education meets the needs of our society.
   

References

Solutions for Our Future. (2006). Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://tsp.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=about_us_r
http://www.solutionsforourfuture.org/site/DocServer/WaysToGetTheWordOut_2008.pdf?docID=921
http://www.solutionsforourfuture.org/site/PageServer?pagename=tk_facts
http://www.solutionsforourfuture.org/site/PageServer?pagename=tk_core_messages

Squeeze Play 2009

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and Public Agenda have been tracking public attitudes toward higher education since 1993. This report, based on a survey conducted in late December 2008, repeats an early 2007 survey. The 2007 was conducted in healthy, robust economic times; the repeat survey was conducted when the country was in the midst of what appeared to be a prolonged economic recession.

Over the last eight years the percentage of Americans that feel that a college education is essential to moving into the middle-class has steadily increased from 31% in 2000 to 55% in 2008. During the same time the percentage of Americans that feel that qualified students have the opportunity to attend college has decreased from 45% in 2000 to 29% in 2008. An increasing number of Americans believe that college has become financially out-off-reach.

What are the implications? Americans taxpayers are becoming more and more concerned about the justification of educational costs. The study states that 53% of Americans believe that colleges could spend less and still maintain a high quality of education. The perception of unjustified costs has resulted in a public that is not willing to spend more on education. This has lead to a decrease in the general good will that colleges and universities have enjoyed over the years. Because of this decrease in good will and support, state and national policymakers have found it easier to exert more influence on higher education. This influence comes in the form of calls for “greater accountability” and more aggressive regulation.

Reference

Immerwahr, J. & Johnson J. (2009). Squeeze play 2009-The public’s views on college costs today. Public Agenda and The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/squeeze_play_09/squeeze_play_09.pdf.

Arkansas Department of Higher Education

The Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE) was created WHEN to coordinate higher education within the state and to promote orderly and effective development of each public college and university in the state. ADHE acts to promote higher education to train a more effective workforce that will encourage economic development within the state. The director, Dr. Jim Purcell, states that, “At ADHE, we understand that one of the barriers standing between many of our citizens and higher education is the process of finding an institution to attend, applying to that institution, and then figuring out how to pay for it.”

ADHE acts as a coordinator for courses across the state. For example, they are the organization that ensures the course called “College Algebra” means the same thing at each institution. In addition, there is a department of Institutional Finance within ADHE. This Department works with the finances offices of the public institutions in Arkansas. It compiles that data to provide reports about the State’s higher education financing to the general public, government officials, and college and university staff. Some of the recent publications are available at http://www.adhe.edu/divisions/institutionalfinance/Pages/InstitutionalFinance.aspx .

The Financial Aid division provides a list of the state scholarships that are administered through ADHE. This Division’s webpage aims to educate the public about the different scholarships that are available as well as the policies and procedures for attaining one of the scholarships. There is a scholarship listing is available at http://www.adhe.edu/divisions/financialaid/Pages/fa_programs.aspx . (I was a recipient of one of these ADHE scholarships when I was an undergraduate, and I am grateful for their service!)

Reference
Arkansas Department of Higher Education (2009), Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://www.adhe.edu .

Student Loan Forgiveness Programs

Student loan forgiveness programs have been used since the 1940’s to encourage study in areas leading to employment in areas of critical need or underserved communities. The typical situation (in-school model) involves loan repayment or forgiveness in return for a commitment to work an agreed upon number of years in an occupation of critical need or underserved communities. The programs were generally directed towards teachers, health-care workers, public-service attorneys, and military personnel. Recently the in-school model has shifted to an on-the-job model. The on-the-job model does not pay for college while the student is enrolled. It allows the student to seek loan repayment (forgiveness) after obtaining employment. Interest has increased in these programs because of the growing concern about college affordability. This report presents a series of observations concerning these programs and concludes with a discussion future research that the organization feels is necessary to validate the effectiveness and efficiency of these programs.

Observations

• Many communities have struggled with workforce shortages in high-need occupations and the situation appears to be getting worse.
• Increased college costs, accompanied by increased student loan/burdens, have enhanced the profile and demand for loan forgiveness programs.
  The size and scope of loan forgiveness programs has increased at all levels; federal, state and local.
• Cutbacks in funding, subsidies and other issues have put some loan forgiveness programs in financial peril.
• Even as some programs are in financial peril lawmakers continue to add to the number of programs available.
• High administrative costs are resulting in a move away from in-school programs toward the on-the-job programs.
• Little information is available highlighting outcomes and effectiveness of these programs.

Conclusions

• Loan forgiveness should be only one component of the overall financial aid package available to students. Policymakers should examine alternative solutions to the affordability dilemma.
• When programs are implemented the problems that are being addressed, the goals and objectives, and the methods of assessment should be stated.
• Better quantitative data that can be used to analysis the effectiveness of these programs must be developed.

Reference

Harnisch, T. L. (2009). Student loan forgiveness programs: an evolving workforce development tool. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.aascu.org/policy/policy_matters/index.htm.

Unit 3: TN Higher Education Watchdog (The Tennessean)

The Tennessean labels itself a "Watchdog" of HE in Tennessee. As the Midstate's major daily newspaper and the flagship publication of The Tennessean multi-media company, the newspaper is the mainstay of Nashville business. Each and every day, they claim to deliver essential news, responsible ideas, diverse opinions, and timely advice. In the last few years, they have exposed several financial, personal, and educational issues related to HE in TN. Including the following headlines titled "Stimulus Funds Keep TN Colleges Afloat," "TN's Colleges' Enrollment Grows, but Budgets Shrink," and "State Cuts Hurt Growing Colleges." This site keeps Tennesseans informed on what is going on in HE. In my opinion the Tennessean is very skeptical of HE and they want to make sure that HE knows they are watching fiscal practices and other policy related issues. They will report discrepancies and other information deemed controversial. In the last year or two they added all the salaries for state employees (UT, BOR, state employees) to the site and it has really stirred the pot. Here is a link to the salaries page: http://data.tennessean.com/DB/dbc/statesalaries09.php

References: Gannett Foundation (2009). The Tennessean. Retrieved from http://www.tennessean.com/.

Unit 3: 2009-10 Fiscal Analysis (THEC)

The Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) was created in 1967 by the Tennessee General Assembly (TCA 49-7-202) for the purpose of coordinating and supporting the efforts of post-secondary institutions in the State of Tennessee. One of its statutory requirements is to create a master plan for the development of public higher education in Tennessee.

The mission for Tennessee's twenty-first century system of higher education is to elevate the overall educational attainment of citizens in the State through increased accessibility to mission-focused institutions, which deliver educational services on campus, as well as through a planned network of off-campus instruction and to prepare citizens responsibly for success in the new century by providing high quality teaching and research in an environment that serves the needs of its consumers.

If you are a CFO, CBO or a person interested in HE Finance in the state of Tennessee, the Tennessee Higher Education Commission has a fiscal analysis page http://www.state.tn.us/thec/Divisions/Fiscal/FiscalAnalysis.html that lists several reports that may be helpful in understanding public HE in Tennessee. There are reports listed for appropriations, a tuition model, some grapevine appropriation data, total student support history and state student subsidy for 2009-10.

Reference: Tennessee Higher Education Commission (2009). Fiscal Analysis. Retrieved: October 15, 2009 from http://www.state.tn.us/thec/Divisions/Fiscal/FiscalAnalysis.html

Unit 3: Funding and Access Issues in Public Higher Education: A Community College Perspective

Professional associations such as the National State Directors of Community College (NCSDCC), an affiliate of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), can be considered opinion leaders when it comes to higher education finance. Geoffrey Obrzut, chair of NCSDCC, noted that "despite the differences in the structure and governance (of community colleges), members of the NCSDCC are well positioned to comment on issues of access and funding in their own sectors, other sectors of education, and in the state government" (Katsinas & Tollefson, 2009, p. v). Even though both NCSDCC and AACC offer comments for all sectors of higher education, they serve primarily as opinion leaders for community colleges. As an example, the NCSDCC along with the University of Alabama Education Policy Center recently released their 2009 report Funding and Access Issues in Public Higher Education: A Community College Perspective. This extensive report presents findings from the 2008-2009 survey of state directors that focused on funding and access issues affecting community colleges. The report is presented from the perspective of community colleges and covers such areas as enrollment, 2008-2009 funding, 2009-2010 funding predictions, tuition increases, and other issues. It is directed primarily to chief financial officers and other administrators in community collegegs. The following is a small sample of the information provided in the report.

During 2008-2009, 71% of states reported mid-year operating budget cuts in community colleges(Katsinas & Tollefson, 2009). This is compared to 19% in 2007-2008 and 4% in 2006-2007. The authors noted, however, that community colleges were treated equally with other higher education sectors when it came to mid-year budget cuts. Seventy-five percent of states, for example, reported that flagship universities took mid-year budget cuts while 74% reported the same cuts in regional universities. According to the report, community colleges should expect additional mid-year budget cuts during 2009-2010. The data presented in this report is the type of information that administrators and chief financial officers in community colleges commonly work with.

Katsinas and Tollefson (2009) also presented in the report survey information about how community colleges used thier ARRA funds. The majority of the states surveyed noted that their community colleges used stimulus funds to backfill revenue shortfalls. Eighty percent of the state directors expressed concerns about what will happen in community colleges when ARRA funds run out. Unfortunately, this type of data will only validate what many chief financial officers already know and that is the next few years are going to be financially challenging - especially for community colleges.

Professional associations such as NCSDCC and AACC can serve as opinion leaders in higher education finance. Members of such organizations tend to be scholars, administrators, and professionals that have experience with some aspect of higher education finance. The agenda of a professional association is generally to promote a cause and provide information from the standpoint of the area in which the organization represents. The NCSIDCC report, for example, presented its data from the standpoint of community colleges. That is, the majority of the information in the report was directed to community colleges. The authors, however, did include data from four-year colleges and universities so that comparisons could be made with community colleges.

Reference

Katsinas, S. G. & Tollefson, T. A. (2009). Funding and access issues in public higher education: A community college perspective. Findings from the 2009 survey of the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges. Tuscaloosa, Al: The University of AlabamaEducational Policy Center. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from

http://education.ua.edu/edpolicycenter/documents/fundingandaccess2009.pdf

Unit 3: Students are academically prepared though parents are not financially prepared

As an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education prepares action-oriented analyses of pressing policy issues facing the states and the nation regarding opportunity and achievement in higher education-including two- and four-year, public and private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions. Because the National Center is not affiliated with any institution of higher education, with any political party, or with any government agency, it is able to improve higher education by providing information that is not biased or exclusionary. The Center's Board of Directors is comprised of business, government, and education "decision-makers."

One of the Center's reports, Squeeze play 2009, the public's view on college costs today, highlights the public's view that cost remains the partition between higher education and qualified students. The survey upon which this article makes its assertions has been following public opinion about higher education since 1993 and periodically conducts research to gauge this. The Center conducted a recent survey in 2008 that determined that over 2/3s of Americans think higher education is a necessity and a bridge to middle-class status; yet, it is still not accessible to the majority of qualified students because of cost. A trend in public thinking like this one affects the degree to which students even apply to college which consequently continues to have an impact on higher education finance. Additionally, the report says that the survey found that Americans think the cost of higher education is rising faster than other things and wonder if the rise is justified. Accountability for the rising cost of education is obviously not just a concern of higher education governing bodies but of the general public as well.

The implications of this particular public opinion could be detrimental to higher education. The report says that higher eduction may lose the "good will" of the public if policy makers do not address the cost concerns of the public. The research from this public poll solidifies the stance that maybe higher education is not as accessible as most think and it is not because students are not prepared academically for college; it is because student's parents are not prepared financially for college.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Squeeze play 2009: The public's views on college costs today. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/squeeze_play_09/squeeze_play_09.pdf

Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Availability of American Higher Education

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education published this very informative report in 2002. Even though it is now 7 years old, the report provides insight into the financial struggles that have plagued higher education for the past decade or so. The report is composed of seven chapters that each address a topic related to the increasing cost of higher education, including national trends, state support for higher education, q & a about the Losing Ground project, the relationship of state budget shortfalls and rising tuition, public concerns about the high cost of a college education, assistance for middle class families, and profiles of today's college students.
The five national trends that were prevelant at the time of this report were: 1) Increases in tuition have made higher education less affordable for most of American families 2) Federal and state financial aid to students has not kept pace with increases in tuition 3) more students and families of all incomes levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college 4) The steepest increased in public college tuition have been imposed during times of greatest economic hardships 5) state financial support of public higher education has increased, but tuition has increased more.
Trend #5 seems to be an error, but it accurately reflects national trends in 2002. However, the appendix of this report contains each state's trends for tuition and fees at all types of institutions of higher education, median family incomes, state appropriations per student, and student financial aid from the state. this allows one to see the great variability among states.
For example, state appropriations per student increased 33% in Ohio from 4,198 to 5,590, in South Dakota they decreased 9% from 4,308 to 3,911 and in TN, they increased 2% from 5,022 to 5,132. The public university tuition increases in those three states were Ohio increased 32% from 3,845 to 5,058; South Dakota increased 45% from 2,557 to 3,702 and in TN they increased 62% from 2,002 to 3,246. The median family income for these state had increased in Ohio 17% to 64,022, in SD increased 20% to 56,719 and in TN increased 13% to 56,461.
Given the economic events since this report and the current economy, it would be interesting to know how these trends have changed. It can only be assumed that more ground has been lost.

Source: http://www.highereducation.org/reports/losing_ground/affordability_report_final_bw.pdf accessed on Oct 14, 2009

Tuition Continues to Rise, but Patterns Vary by Institution Type, Enrollment & Educational Expenditures

Report by the Government Accountability Office published Nov. 28, 2007

As higher education becomes increasingly important in our society, 90% of the fastest growing jobs requires a college degree or other post-secondary education. College tuition is rising annually and a major concern is that lower income and minority individuals may be unable to pursue a higher education. In spite of efforts to hold down tuition by government, private initities, and higher education institutions themselves, tuition continues to rise.
The Government Accountability Office was asked by Congress to investigate and report on the following: 1) enrollment patterns over the last decade and any relationship to race 2) types of schools with highest enrollment and any relationship to race 3) tuition and fee increases in different types of institutions 4) association of increased tuition and fees and increased spending by institutions on education.
Findings:
1) More students are enrolled in post-secondary education than ever before
2) The percent of minority students is increasing (from 1996-2006, there was a 19% increase in minority students)
3) Hispanic students increased the most
4) Some minority groups had greater percent enrolled in 2 year schools (Hispanic - 60% and Asia/Pacific Islander, Black, Alaskan Native - 50%)
5) The average tuition increased in all types of schools
6) Private schools increased the most in dollars and public schools increased the most in percentage points
7) The increases in average tuition were matched or exceeded by increases in institutional spending on education in private schools but not in public schools.

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-245 accessed on Oct. 14, 2009

Unit 3: National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense." NSF has an annual budget of $6.06 billin and is the funding source for 20% of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. In many fields such as math, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing. (http://www.nsf.gov/about accessed on Oct 12).
NSF supports all field of fundamental science and engineering except for the medical sciences. The goal is to keep the US on the "edge of discovery in areas from astronomy to geology to zoology." (http://www.nsf.gov ) The agency funds traditional programs as well as high-risk, high-pay-off ventures along with programs that might sound futuristic today, but show promise to reviewers. The NSF website provides extensive information about funding opportunities, current and past projects, tutorials on writing proposals, and descriptions of grants with the RFPs. Grants are provided for individual study support such as graduate research projects and for modest to very large grants to institutions for various projects.

NSF has a director who oversees the full time, permanent staff and other management positions in program creation and management, merit reviews, planning, budget and day-to-day operations. there is a board with 24 members who, along with the director, serve 6-year terms. All of these top positions are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the US Senate.
Source: http://www.nsf.gov

Tennessee Higher Education Commission

The Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) is the body that coordinates the public institutions of higher education and has a working relationship with the private colleges and universities. "THEC was created in 1967 by the General Assembly for the purpose of coordinating and supporting the efforts of the post secondary institutions in the State of Tennessee. One of its statutory requirements is to create a plan for the development of higher education in Tennessee." (http://www.state.tn.us/thec/index.html accessed on Oct 12, 2009). THEC's 21st century mission is to improve the educational attainment of Tennesseans. This is to be accomplished through increased assessibility of high quality teaching and research.
The THEC website if designed to provide general information about the higher education programs available in TN as well as stats and policy analysis related to higher education . The Fact Book is available online and contains a comprehensive report of public higher education in Tennessee (http://www.state.tn.us/GleamFactbook/2008-09FactBook.pdf ). There are four sections in the report. Section 1 is entitled "Enrollment and Transfers" and includes headcounts at all public institutions along with various subdivisions such aas full time, part-time, student level, gender, age, race, off-campus, average ACT scores of incoming freshmetn, undergraduate transfers, along with enrollment trends and more. Section 2 is entitled, "Persistence and Attainment" and provides information on degrees awarded by institution, gender, race, job placement for community colleges, technical center completion and placement rates. The Section 3 is entitled, "Fiscal" and contains a comprehsive analysis of financing of higher education in Tennessee. It includes such topics as state appropriations related to higher education as a percent of state revenue, general tuition and fees overall and by institution, percent of family income needed to pay for college, state appropriations for Tennessee higher education by formula unit, non-formula unit and specialized programs, student support analysis, total revenue per FTE, TSAC non-lottery grants and scholarships, TN education lottery program, peer faculty salary comparisons, average faculty salaries, and more.
THEC administers grant programs from the state and federal government. THEC develops and disseminates the RFPs and receives and selects proposals for funding. One recent grant was the large federal program entitled, "Improving Teacher Quality" which provided funding for higher education to design and conduct professional development for K-12 teachers.
THEC's executive director is Richard G. Rhoda. There are nine lay members with 6-year terms representing congressional districts of the state. There are three constitutional officers who are ex-oficio voting members (Comptroller fo the Treasury, State Treasurer, Secretary of State). There are also two student members, one from the UT system and one from the Board of Regents system, each serving two year terms and only one voting at a time. Lastly, the Executive Director of the State Board of Education is an ex-oficio non-voting member. The board is primarily appointed by the governor and works closely with that office and the legislature.
Information from the THEC website: www.state.tn.us/thec

Unit 3: Fixing Financial Aid Formula

The Lumina Foundation for Education published a report in May 2006 called Fixing the Formula: A New Approach to Determining Independent Students' Ability to Pay for College. The report scrutinizes the current financial aid formula's precision for assessing need among independent students. It mentions independent students are less likely to receive financial assistance based on the current formula because of the reliance on past earnings and confiscatory income as an indicator of the student's financial capacity. The formula unfairly discriminates against those who are forced to work long hours since no other financial resources are available.

The proposed formula has four separate income components: 1.) Saving and Assets, 2.) Current Income, 3.) Future Income, and 4.) Parental Income. Savings and Assets is the first component. It looks at past income over two years for potential savings and assets such as home equity. Both are prorated over the number of years the student needs to complete the degree. Current Income is the second component. It is based on current earnings and unearned income such as spouse's income and financial responsibility for dependents. The third component to the new formula is Future Income. The component is designed to keep loan debt manageable based on what the student is expected to earn after completing the degree. Future Income looks at loan aid as a student contribution and future financial obligation. Parental income is the final component. Expected contributions (EC) are higher for students whose parents have financial resources. Based on a 2004 report from the U.S. Department of Education called Principle Indicators of Student Academic Histories on Postsecondary Education, a small proportion of independent undergraduate students have affluent parents, especially those who are part-time status students. Independent students are less likely to benefit from parental resources, but those who are above the age of 24 and receive parental support should not be given an automatic increase in aid either.

The Lumina Foundation for Education is a private, independent foundation that strives to help people achieve their potential be expanding access to and success in education beyond high school. The foundation seeks to address issues and indentify and promote practices that will increase the rate of entry and success for low-income, underrepresented populations into postsecondary education. The foundation's core belief is that postsecondary education remains one of the most beneficial investments an individual can make in his or her life and that society can make in its people.

The foundation's focus on idenifying access problems clearly guided the intent of this study. Adult learners, an underrepresented population, has difficulty receiving assistance to attend college based on the level of necessary income needed to support their household. The article identifies the target audience financial aid assists most and its limitations. Furthermore the piece offers a practical solution or best practice to increase the rate and success of adult learners. Without the pressures of financial burdern, the limitations to accessibility and affordability can be relieved.

Refernces:

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2004). Principle indicators of student academic histories in postsecondary education 1972 - 2000. Washington, DC.

Lumina Foundation for Education (2006, May). Fixing the formula: A new approach to determining independent students' ability to pay for college. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/researchreports.html

Lumina Foundation for Education (2009). About us. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.luminafoundation.org/about_us.

Unit 3: Costs, Prices, and Affordability

A report published in 2006 by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences called Costs, Prices, and Affordability focuses on the complexities of the postsecondary finance system. The report begins by offering surprising statistics to justify the need for public policy reform in higher education. Over the last 25 years, tuition and fees have increased faster than inflation, per capital personal income, consumer prices, prescription health care, and even health insurance (College Board, 2005). Absent a change in federal and state tax spending policies, the proportion of state and federal funding going to higher education is predicted to decline in every state (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education [NCPPHE], 2005). The report also explains postsecondary finance terminology like revenue, expenditure, prices, revenue driven costs, and measures of institutional costs for better understanding of the report.

The report recognizes no single answer as to why college prices continue to rise or a simple solution as to handle public policy reform accordingly. Spending on instruction has declined as a proportion of educational and general spending in all public institutions, with the biggest declines coming in public two-year colleges. Overall spending has increased slightly in real terms, but by just slightly more than inflation at 4.4 percent at public four-year institutions. Overall spending at public two-year institutions, in real terms, is well below the rate of inflation at 2.4 percent. The report does not offer any specific recommendation to control college prices from increasing at its unprecedented rate, but does offer suggestions for places to focus discussion, such as central public policy changes, student affordability, institutional productivity and focus on public priorities, state and national capacity to sustain economic competitiveness, and public credibility and accountability.

The report does offer a few suggestions to control the unexplainable rise in postsecondary prices. An institution without a parallel focus from money to purpose and outcomes perpetuates data chases to no particular effect. Student affordability will be increased only if college prices are stabilized and more need-based grant aids get to the poorest students. Higher education institutions must stop looking at costs in context of revenues and view costs in relation to production functions. The biggest challenge institutions will face over the next decade is finding ways to enhance productivity under scenarios of slow or no growth in public revenues. The U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences was founded in 1980. The Institute of Education Sciences' mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The branch's budget is dedicated to establishing polices on federal financial aid for education, collecting data on American schools and disseminating research, focusing national attention on key educational issues, and ensuring access to education.

References:

College Board (2005). Trends in student aid and prices. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.collegeboard.org/.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2005, November). Income of US workforce projected to decline if education doesn't improve. San Jose, California.

United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2006). Costs, prices, and affordability. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html.

United State Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2009). Overview. Retrieved October 1o, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu.

Unit 3: Budget Shortfalls for States Through 2013

A report published in 2006 by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences called State Shortfalls Projected to Continue Despite Economic Gains; Long-term Prospects for Higher Education No Brighter offered a long-term prognosis for states financial situation through the year 2013. The report looked at trends in state spending and revenue from 2002 to 2006 to provide these projections. The analysis projects all states will face potential budget deficits further limiting funds for higher education. The economic prosperity of the late 90's and 2005 were considered outliers for the projection. Although cyclic patterns in finance can be expected, an overhaul of state budgetary practices is needed for prosperity to happen before 2013. During the 90's and 2005, reserve funds were tapped, spending was controlled, higher education institutions had extraordinary increases in enrollment, and rebounding tax revenues eased states from experiencing a fiscal crisis.

All 50 states are expected to face a gap between projected growth and costs of public services. The report recommends that states either scale back its appetite for government services or state residents must accept tax increases to finance new growth. Unfortunately for higher education, the demand for growth in other services like K-12 education, Medicaid, social services, and corrections have taken priority. Only Nevada, Illinois, New Jersey, and Arizona are expected to see appropriations for higher education grow more rapidly than needs of other state and local programs.

The report's 2013 projections for each state were based off current revenue structures, conservative estimates for expenditures, and an average or normal state economic conditions. States are likely to face substantial gaps between revenues and resources required to maintain current service levels. By 2013, state revenues will be 5.7 percent lower than the level needed to maintain current services. Personal income is projected to grow at an annual rate of 4.5 percent. State and local spending needed to maintain current services is projected to grow just shy of the personal income rate at 4.4 percent. State revenue is projected to grow at an alarming annual pace of only 3.7 percent. The report outlines three main reasons for this condition: 1.) tax revenue will not grow as fast as the economy, 2.) spending in states will be dominated by the cost of Medicaid, 3.) the federal budget is expected to substantially cut state and local grants. States in the northeast, who historically tax larger portions of income, have the least gap between spending and revenue. States with no income tax, only a sales tax, and those that rely heavily on federal aid, like Wyoming, will suffer projected gaps ranging from 8 to 13 percent.

The U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences was founded in 1980. The institute's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The branch's budget is dedicated to establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, collecting data on American schools and disseminating research, focusing national attention on key educational issues, and ensuring equal access to education.

References:

United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2006). State shortfalls projected to continue despite economic gains; Long-term prospects for higher education no brighter. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/%20index.html.

Unit 3: Measuring Up (2008) - The National Report Card on Higher Education

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education produces a report card for each state that includes: an overview of the following items for each state's higher education status (strengths and weaknesses, preparation, participation, affordability, completion, benefits, learning, international comparisons, and state facts). Each state's report card can be downloaded into PDF format. There is also a national map snapshot that can be viewed based on all the criteria listed above. I thought this was a very informative report.

Reference: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2008). Measuring Up: 2008. Retrieved October 9, 2009 from: http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org

Unit 3: SHEEO Quick Facts and SHEF FY08 Report

The State Higher Education Executive Officers has a neat reporting interactive map available from their homepage that quickly displays facts on state's higher education status (2008). The report includes state population, total headcount enrollments, total 3 of institutions, total completions and state appropriations.

Reference: State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2008). State Quick Facts. Retrieved October 9, 2009 from:
http://www.sheeo.org/sqf/sqf.htm

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) provides an in-depth analysis of the trends in Higher Education on both the state and national levels. This report includes information on enrollment, tuition, educational revenue and appropriations, and many other financial indicators for higher education. This has invaluable resources for the financial officer and others interested in finance in HE.

Reference: State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2008). State Higher Education Finance. Retrieved October 9, 2009 from http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef_fy08.pdf