Running head: INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Increasing Educational Attainment: Redefining Aid, Articulating Public Benefits and Expanding Apprenticeship Programs Elia Grenier SDAD 585 Seattle University

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Increasing Educational Attainment: Redefining Aid, Articulating Public Benefits and Expanding Apprenticeship Programs The news published about higher education these days is typically pretty dire American educational attainment is not improving fast enough, students are taking on higher debt loads to finance their education, there are increasing rates of loan default, and public

funding continues to be cut. In this climate, it is tempting to look for the silver bullet that will get us back to the good old days. Unfortunately, those days may never be coming back. The higher education landscape has changed, and instituting quick-fix financial policy changes across all of higher education is unlikely to have a lasting positive effect. Institutions, even those within the same sector, are so diverse in terms of their missions and needs that there cannot be a one-sizefits-all solution. However, steps can be taken to improve the current situation. The public needs to be reminded of the social and financial benefit of higher education for all of society, students need to become more informed about ways to access aid and the implications of student loan debt, and a revitalization of apprenticeship programs needs to occur to create vibrant postsecondary alternatives to the ubiquitous bachelors degree. First, this paper will examine the benefits and drawbacks with the high-tuition, high-aid model of funding, including policy issues surrounding financial aid and loan debt. Next, it will look at the benefits of publicly funding higher education. Then it will outline the structure and benefits of improved apprenticeship programs. Finally, it will quickly address some of the bigger picture questions of who should attend, who should pay, and to whose benefit. The high-tuition, high aid model, which used to be more prevalent in private institutions, is becoming the model for more public institutions, and there is a fervent debate over whether or not that is a step in the right direction. At the University of Washington, undergraduate resident

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT tuition and fees have increased more than 2.5 times in the last decade, from $4,636 in the 20022003 to $12,383 in the 2012-2013 academic year. The already higher out-of-state undergraduate

tuition and fees have nearly doubled in the same time period ($15,337 to $29,938) (University of Washington Office of Planning & Budgeting, 2012). State Representative Chris Reykdal says the model has shifted to a market-driven paradigm of Why should taxes pay? You should pay for your education (personal communication, July 25, 2012). But according to Gary Quarfoth, UWs Associate Vice Provost for Planning & Budgeting, a high-tuition, high aid model prevents drop off of low-income attendance as more money is put into aid, which is subsidized through bringing in more out of state and international students to make up the cost difference (personal communication, July 30, 2012). When asked how the model impacts students from middle class families who cannot afford high tuition but may not qualify for high aid, Quarfoth acknowledged that this may be a problem, but he sees a solution in targeted fundraising and directing endowment income to scholarships for middle income students (personal communication, July 30, 2012). This debate has reached the community college level, which has historically been an affordable alternative to both public and private 4-year institutions. One side argues that the only way to maintain revenue and increase enrollment is to raise tuition, and that this will actually maintain access for underserved populations, as they will be eligible for higher levels of financial aid (Romano, 2012). A low-tuition policy for all students is a subsidy for those who can afford to pay at the expense of those who do not attend college at all. Instead, both tuition and aid should be higher, colleges should keep any excess tuition revenue, and this will allow community colleges to expand and serve even more students (Romano, 2012). The other side argues that the high-tuition, high aid model works better in theory than in

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT practice (Sullivan, 2010). First, high financial aid increasingly consists of inadequate needbased grants and scholarships coupled with subsidized and unsubsidized student loans. Aid has

been operationally redefined as debt (Sullivan, 2010). At the federal level, there has been limited or reduced growth in grant programs and work study, and exponential growth in loan programs. State support varies, but the trends have been similar. In terms of relative cost, poor families are putting a lot more on the line to pay for higher education, even at 2-year institutions. In 2005, the percentage of family income needed to pay tuition, fees, and board at a 2-year college was 58% for the lowest 20% income families, 17% for the middle 20%, and 7% for the highest 20% (Sullivan, 2010, p. 652). Concerns about costs and tuition have a greater impact on the enrollment decisions of low income youth (Kane, 1994, 1995, Kane & Ellwood, 2000, as cited in Sullivan, 2010), and many students do not know the process of how to apply for financial aid. Kantrowitz (2009, as cited in Romano, 2012) estimated that at the community college level, only 58% of Pell-eligible students filled out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, which is drastically lower than the 99.5% of the Pell-eligible students at for-profit, 2-year colleges. In addition, community college students are generally more risk averse than 4-year students (Baum & Payea, 2010, as cited in Romano, 2012) and may not take on loan debt even if they are aware of the option. In a study of community college loan borrowers and non-borrowers in Washington State, England-Siegerdt (2011) examined whether loans actually expand opportunities among community college students based on who is likely to borrow from federal loan programs. Prior research has found some minority groups, particularly Hispanics, have a strong aversion to borrowing, as do low-income students in general. Her findings showed being Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, female, or first generation decreases the odds

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT that a student will borrow. As the states population becomes increasingly diverse, failure to

increase funding sources other than loan programs will impact educational attainment levels and the community colleges ability to meet their educational goals and address current economic challenges. It seems clear that the high-tuition, high aid model is not the best way to further the educational mission of community colleges. However, we need to find a way to adequately fund the nations community colleges. Already, more than 400,000 prospective students have been denied access because of institutions budget driven moves limit academic programs and restrict enrollment (Gonzlez, 2012). Despite the inevitable battles in the state and federal legislature, the best hope for maintaining higher educations mission and access is restored state and federal funding of higher education. We just need to be able to clearly articulate why public support of higher education is a public benefit. Professor Christopher Newfield has written extensively on the subjects of degree attainment and public education for the public good (2010; 2011; 2012). Since 1980, American educational attainment has grown at half the rate of the previous four decades, which coincided with flat or falling public funding per student (Newfield, 2010). Historically, low tuition ensured mass access and the United States led the world in educational attainment and quality. Schools have kept raising tuition to cover decreases in public funding, which has unfortunately sent the message that they can keep doing so in lieu of restoring public funding to pre-recession levels. Newfield (2010) promotes several ways to argue for the necessity of expanded public funding: put the universitys core missions front and center ahead of its business goals, and open the books on cross-subsidies to help the public understand why universities cost as much as they do. Public institutions have begun acting more like private institutions, raising tuition and

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT fees, conducting fundraising campaigns, and outsourcing auxiliary services, but they have a severe disadvantage in all these arenas (Curran, 2009). Public institutions must emphasize their

differences with private universities, and consistently contend that only the public system has the capacity to support mass creativity and develop a successful innovation economy (Newfield, 2011). In other words, knowledge is the coin of the realm, and evidence proves states which do not adequately fund higher education have lower levels of economic development and higher instances of brain drain (Curran, 2009, p. 2). Kallison and Cohen (2010) view higher education as both a public and a private good. They advocate for a new higher education compact in which legislators provide more resources to public institutions and direct aid to students, and institutions provide clear evidence that they are producing graduates with needed specified knowledge and abilities (p. 41). By both increasing funding and meaningful accountability, each party will get what it needs to take back to its stakeholders (Kallison & Cohen, 2010, p. 48). However, this increase in accountability and reporting cannot be imposed without an increase in funding. In the last fifty years there has been unprecedented growth of state and federal regulation in higher education, without providing adequate funding for compliance (Barr & McClellan, 2011). Increased administrative costs to document and report student progress and fiscal responsibility to the many stakeholders that oversee public higher education is a factor that will continue to push costs up (Romano, 2012). Even if federal and state policymakers are not swayed by the social, research, and knowledge base benefits of funding higher education, they should be convinced by real fiscal rate of return on investment. Trostel (2010) found the average real internal rate of return on government investment in college education is at least 10%, conservatively (p. 222). Greater

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT college attainment has quantifiable benefits through increased tax revenues from increased income, reduced low-income tax credits, and decreased government expenditures on Medicaid, Medicare, and various other public assistance programs. Over an average lifetime, total government spending per college degree is negative. The direct extra tax revenues from college graduates alone, roughly $471,000 per degree over a lifetime, are more than six times the gross government cost per college degree (Trostel, 2010, p. 220). While not everyone with a college degree earns more than those without, this research should provide an additional argument in support of increasing funding and college degree attainment from a purely fiscal standpoint. Most education professionals would agree that anyone with the desire to attend a postsecondary institution should have that opportunity. However, definitions of success should

not be predicated on having received a postsecondary degree, particularly a bachelors degree or higher. Representative Chris Reykdal cited numbers that only 25% of the population needs bachelors degrees or higher for their chosen profession, while 50-60% needs something more than high school, like technical or professional training (personal communication, July 25, 2012). The current business model has become to require workers to be highly trained pre-employment, with no guarantee of a job, and to create a culture of needing a bachelors degree to be employable even if the skills acquired in a higher degree program are not necessary for the position. As the United States has become an increasingly knowledge-based economy, we have devalued skilled craftsmanship. In 2009, a New York Times article called The Case for Working with Your Hands articulated a dilemma that continues to the present day. The author, Matthew Crawford, has a Ph.D. in political philosophy but has chosen to own a motorcycle repair shop. To sum up the problem: A gifted young person who chooses to become a mechanic rather than to accumulate academic credentials is viewed as eccentric, if not self-destructive. There is a

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT pervasive anxiety among parents that there is only one track to success for their children (Crawford, 2009, para. 6). He hoped that the current recession would help expand the definition

of success, which may be true to a limited extent. But skilled apprenticeships must be part of the postsecondary makeup if we plan for an America where people are highly trained in areas with practical, hands-on skills. Many students feel misled about the better life being offered through higher degree attainment, particularly at its ever increasing personal cost and debt load. This creates a great opportunity to reinvigorate perceptions of apprenticeship as an equal alternative, and not a lowclass, blue-collar option only fit for those who couldnt get into a degree program. One way to overcome the stigma would be to promote apprenticeships as an excellent postsecondary option for success for students from a diverse range of backgrounds and abilities, including high achievers. The financial benefit could be emphasizedcompleting an apprenticeship raises individuals' average earning potential by more than twice what typical community-college programs do (Gonzlez, 2010). Encouraging more collaboration between apprenticeship programs and community colleges is a key way to strengthen and expand the nation's apprenticeship system. This collaboration will also develop pathways that will enable apprentices to seamlessly apply their credential toward an undergraduate or advanced degrees, or concurrently earn associates degrees. In Europe, training is paid for by employers who consider apprentices an important part of their current and future work force. Apprentices are given highskill technical training that combines theory with practice, and the students are also paid (Jones, 2011). There is no need to prioritize work over school to make ends meet, as work is school and school is work. There is already a federal program in place that is administered through the Department of Labor. Certain states, such as South Carolina, have already made a significant

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT investment in their apprenticeship programs through recurring state funding and tax credits (Stieritz, 2009). However, the program needs to be expanded nationally and apprenticeships

should be developed for occupations traditionally associated with a liberal arts education, such as engineering, communications, banking, and teacher professional development. The everybody should go to college message devalues those who train in other ways to serve in very important and necessary professions (Jones, 2011). A robust, national apprenticeship program will provide opportunities and alternatives for many, and will actually increase attainment levels as many participants will concurrently earn associates degrees. However, we still need to invest in the entire public education system to meet attainment goals and restore our knowledge based economy. In Washington State, restoring robust funding to higher education could come through eliminating excessive tax exemptions, pushing for a state income tax, and providing the necessary tax base for funding initiatives. Nationwide, state and federal funding needs to be increased to high enough levels that students will be able to attend four years of school without mortgaging their (or their parents) future earnings. High-tuition, high aid models do not work well for low-income or first generation students who may have difficulty navigating the unnecessarily complex financial aid system. There are irrefutable social and fiscal benefits to public finding of higher education, even if the return arent immediate investments need to be made for the nations future success and prosperity.

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT References

10

Barr, M. J., & McClellan, G. S. (2011). Budgets and financial management in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crawford, M.B. (2009, May 21). The case for working with your hands. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html Curran, C. M. (2009). Publicly funded, publicly supported, publicly endorsed: The fate of public higher education. Marketing Education Review, 19(3), 1-2. England-Siegerdt, C. (2011). Do loans really expand opportunities for community college students? Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 35(1/2), 88-98. doi: 10.1080/10668926.2011.525180 Gonzlez, J. (2010, September 24). Apprenticeship programs expand with help of community colleges. The Chronicle Of Higher Education, 57(5), A1-A16. Gonzlez, J. (2012, April 22). Education for all? 2-year colleges struggle to preserve their mission. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/2-Year-Colleges-Fight-to-Save/131608/ Jones, D. A. (2011). Apprenticeships back to the future. Issues in Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.issues.org/27.4/auer_jones.html Kallison, J. M., Jr., & Cohen, P. (2010). A new compact for higher education: Funding and autonomy for reform and accountability. Innovative Higher Education, 35, 37-49. doi: 10.1007/s10755-009-9123-2 Newfield, C. (2010). Avoiding the coming higher ed wars. Academe, 96(3), 38-42. Newfield, C. (2011, September 2). How unequal state support diminished degree attainment. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(2), A47-A48.

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Newfield, C. (2012, April 15). Public education for the public good. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/How-Unequal-StateSupport/131536/ Romano, R. M. (2012). Looking behind community college budgets for future policy considerations. Community College Review, 40(2), 165-189. doi: 10.1177/0091552112441824 Stieritz, A. M. (2009). Apprenticeship Carolina: Building a 21st century workforce through

11

statewide collaboration. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 980982. doi: 10.1080/10668920903153485 Sullivan, P. (2010). What is affordable community college tuition?: Part 1. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34, 645-661. doi: 10.1080/10668920903527126 Trostel, P. A. (2010). The fiscal impacts of college attainment. Research in Higher Education, 51, 220-247. doi: 10.1007/s1162-009-9156-5 University of Washington Office of Planning and Budgeting. (2012). Twenty-year history of tuition and required fees. [Provided by Associate Vice Provost Quarfoth, July 30, 2012].