Skip to content
Blog

Category: Higher Ed Policy

More Information Available Comparing Student Achievement Council Bills

Posted on

House Higher Education committee staff published a table today comparing Senate and House bills, which would create the Council office, define its responsibilities, and set membership for its board. While Senate Bill 6232 passed unanimously on February 10, House Ways & Means is set to introduce a substitute on the House bill. Legislative staff published the table to  compare the original House bill, the engrossed second substitute Senate bill, and the proposed House second substitute bill.

This table is available on OPB’s website.

Plans for Student Achievement Council (HECB Successor) Are Shaping Up

Posted on

Last year, Senate Bill 5182 (introduced and signed in 2011) significantly changed the landscape of higher education policy coordination when it eliminated the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) and created the Office of Student Financial Aid. This bill created a steering committee, led by the Governor, to reconsider higher education governance. After meeting through last summer and autumn, they released a final report that made a number of policy suggestions.

The 2012 Legislature has entertained a number of higher education governance bills to replace the HECB and many of its policy functions. These bills would charge a new Student Achievement Council with some coordinating and planning functions, as well as the HECB’s financial aid management function.

At this stage, SSB 6232 is progressing through the legislative process and may serve as the vehicle for creating the Student Achievement Council and defining its role and responsibility in higher education policy and governance. A summary of the second substitute bill is included below.

  • The Student Achievement Council is created
  • Within the Council, the Office of Student Financial Assistance is created to administer financial aid
  • The Council is comprised of four citizen members, one four-year college representative, one Community/Technical College member, one nonprofit independent higher education member, one K12 member, and one student (9 members total)
  • The Council’s goals are to maximize educational attainment and monitor progress towards its goals
    • Additionally, the Council would:
      • Establish short and long term attainment goals
      • Engage in strategic planning
      • Conduct financing planning, study per student funding levels, and continue to make budget recommendations
      • Recommend system design and coordination efforts
      • Set minimum admissions standards
      • Use data to make informed recommendations
      • Arbitrate disputes between the two-year and four-year sectors

 

Obama’s Blueprint for Higher Education Affordablity

Posted on

As reported on the UW Office of Federal Relations blog, President Obama made a splash in the higher education community last week when he outlined new proposals for higher education reform in his State of The Union Address and in a speech at the University of Michigan. Many are praising the President’s focus on the value of higher education in today’s economy, and in particular, the importance of high quality, affordable higher education. However, a proposal to more closely tie federal financial aid funding  to some kind of institutional performance measures has proved more controversial.

In what the Administration is calling a Blueprint for College Affordability, Obama has proposed that Congress significantly increase available federal campus-based aid (primarily Perkins loans) and distribute the funds based on three institutional performance measures, including relatively low net tuition levels or low tuition growth, providing a good value to students, and serving low-income students. Until a detailed policy proposal is unveiled (likely after the election), it is difficult to know how substantial a shift this may be for institutions, but it is clearly an attempt to send a message to institutions about cost control. Obama stated, “If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down.”

Other proposals included in Obama’s blueprint, include:

  • Creating a $1 billion Race to the Top program to reward states for making systemic changes in education policy and funding to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Creating a $55 million First in the World competition to provide seed funding for institutions or other nonprofits to innovate.
  • Publishing a ‘College Scorecard’ for each institution, which will provide clear, comparable information on college costs, financial aid, graduation rates and, if these data become available, potential earnings.
  • Asking Congress to make the American Opportunity Tax Credit permanent, extend the lowered federal student loan interest rate (3.4%), and double the number of federal work study jobs.

Without policy details it is hard to know how these reforms might affect specific institutions, but because it marks a shift from previous federal efforts to facilitate attainment by increasing federal aid and easing federal loan repayment pressure, it is an important development and one that we will keep a close eye on.

Online Learning Still Plagued by Uncertainty

Posted on

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute published an interesting paper recently called Creating Sound Policy for Digital Learning. While primarily focused on the role of technology in K-12 education, the paper provides perspective for higher education as well. This topic is especially important as the economic crisis continues to push universities to produce more with less and, as a result, demands to scale up online learning intensify.

The paper recognizes the hope and possibility that technology will produce productivity gains in education over the long-term, but addresses major questions about quality and cost and emphasizes the need for systematic testing and analysis prior to radically changing today’s teaching model. Among the important points brought up in the paper:

  • We must question not only whether online learning can be less expensive than traditional learning, but, more importantly, whether it can be both less expensive and at least as good (or better) in quality and outcomes. We do not yet have enough data to answer this question.
  • The world of online learning is not monolithic. There are many ways to integrate technology with learning , and each model has very different costs and benefits and downsides.
  • Like with any new model, the start-up costs are very high and require a large up-front  investment.
  • Many assume that online learning will minimize labor costs by reducing a reliance on in-person instruction, but labor costs associated with developing, running, and maintaining sophisticated technology-based programs are themselves very high.
  • Similarly, online learning requires a dependence on expensive equipment (not only individual learning devices for teachers and students, but also servers, storage, and all the needs that accompany the maintenance and management of a large, technology-based enterprise).
  • Because technology changes so frequently, many of these costs are confronted anew on a much more regular basis than in a traditional educational model (e.g. Universities spending millions to wire entire campuses and then very quickly having to switch everything over to WiFi).

Technology has revolutionized how we live and do business in the modern world. This has been true in education as well, but the effect has not yet been as transformative as was hoped for. As education becomes more important in developing the human capital required for the economy of the future, its rising costs have become a bigger target for reform. And while it is clear that technology can and should play a larger role in changing how we educate the students of tomorrow, it is important that neither the tools of education nor the cost of education take precedence over the quality of the education.

Tax Benefits Increasingly Key to College Affordability

Posted on

Note that the report summarized in this post reflects data through 2007-08. We know from more recent data that 2009’s expansion of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (formerly the Hope tax credit) has more than doubled both benefit and participation rates, so we anticipate future reports to reflect similar but magnified findings.

In its latest Stats in Brief report, the US Department of Education analyzed the impact of federal education tax benefits on college costs for families in 2007-08. The report analyzes three different types of education tax benefits that applied in that year: the Hope tax credit, the Lifetime Learning credit, and the tuition and fees tax deduction.

Eligibility for the credits and deductions was based on student enrollment status, family income level, and citizenship status, and benefits could only be claimed based on the net tuition paid, after grant aid and veterans’ benefits had been taken into account. During the time period analyzed, the Hope credit could be deducted multiple times for multiple children, with a maximum of $1,650 per dependent student. The Lifetime Learning credit and the tuition and fees deduction could only be claimed once per return, with maximums of $2000 and $4000, respectively. The report showed that higher education tax benefits have become an increasing source of student aid: total benefits reached $6.85 billion in 2007-08, and comprised 6 percent of the federal government’s aid dollars that year.

Other interesting findings include:

  • 47 percent of all students in 2007-08 were estimated to have received a federal education tax benefit, reducing college expenses for the year by an average of $700. By contrast, only 27 percent of students received a Pell Grant the same year.
  • Tax credits were most beneficial for low-middle and high-middle income families: low-income families generally do not have enough after-grant net tuition expenses to qualify for benefits, and most high-income families exceed income limits. Of low-middle income families, 56 percent received tax benefits in 2007-08, compared to 63 percent of high-middle income, 48 percent of high income and 29 percent of low income families.
  • While the average benefit for families  in 2007-08 was $700, high-middle income families received an average of $1000 and low-middle income families received $900 in tax benefits.
  • On average, tax benefits decreased the cost of college attendance by about 5 percent.

For more information, check out the full report. To learn more about available tax credits, visit UW’s Office of Student Financial Aid or the IRS’ website.

Higher Ed News Roundup

Posted on

With the special legislative session wrapped up here in Washington, and regular session not set to begin until January 9th, here is some of what has been happening in higher education elsewhere.

Federal Budget Agreement Preserves but Alters Pell Grants: It appears that a last minute FY2012 budget agreement in Washington DC will avert a federal government shutdown. It is reported that this agreement, which cuts billions of dollars and increases NIH funding by a modest one percent, preserves the maximum Pell Grant amount of $5,500 (a priority for Democrats), but alters eligibility. Under this language, Pell grants could only be used for 12 total semesters, not 18. Additionally, the annual income threshold at which a student is automatically determined to have zero Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is lowered from $30,000 to $23,000. Stay tuned to the Office of Federal Relations  for frequent updates on these budget negotiations.

Berkeley Unveils New Aid Program: UC Berkeley made big news this week for announcing a new financial aid program aimed at middle class Californians. Students from families making up to $80,000 per year already attend UC schools tuition-free in California. Under this new plan, UC Berkeley students from families making between $80,000 and $140,000 will have to contribute a maximum of 15 percent of annual income toweard the total cost of attendance at Berkeley (currently $32,000, including room and board). The student would also have to contribute about $8,000 per year via loans, work study or scholarships. According to the New York Times, based on current costs, this programs represents a discount ranging from 10 to 37.5 percent for families that fall within the specified income range. A number of private insitututions have similiar programs, but Berkeley is reported to be the first large public institution to follow suit.

Lariviere Out, Berdahl in at Oregon: After less than three years, Richard Lariviere has been fired by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education as President of the University of Oregon following a year in which he found himself at odds with the state System as he pushed for greater independence for the University of Oregon. The controversial move to oust a President who enjoyed student, faculty, and alumni support, was immediately followed by the appointment of Robert Berdahl as interim president. Berdahl is a former long-time University of Oregon professor and Dean, and has also served as the President of the University of Texas, and UC Berkeley Chancellor, among other roles. Berdahl recently ended his tenure as AAU President and took a highly publicized position as a part-time advisor to Lariviere at the University of Oregon.

More Higher Ed Cuts in CA: California Governor Jerry Brown announced another billion dollars in mid-year state  budget cuts this week as yet another growing budget deficit loomed. The mid-year cuts include another $300 million reduction for the state’s three higher education systems (UC, CSU, and community colleges), which comprise the largest public higher education system in nation. While UC hopes to use temporary funds to bridge this latest cut for a year, further capped enrollments and tuition increases may be likely throughout the system.

VA Announces New Investments in Higher Ed: Meanwhile, Virginia is one of the only states increasing higher education funding. Governor McDonnell announced a new $100 million in funding for higher education, alongside new capital funding for longer term growth. The money is intended to support the goals contained in legislation passed last year, including increasing college attainment in Virginia, increasing affordability, and increasing the number of STEM and health related degrees awarded.

Is Higher Education the Next Bubble?

Posted on

As we continue to experience a very slow recovery from a deep recession, the ideas of long-time critics of modern, inclusive American higher education who question the value of college for many have gained traction and blossomed into widespread public speculation about whether undergraduate education might be the next economic bubble to threaten the US economy. We explore this topic in the latest OPB brief and hold that, in the context of data, the ‘bubble’ metaphor, though effective at capturing public attention in an economic climate characterized by fear and uncertainty, is ultimately inaccurate, misleading, and harmful.

We would love to hear your feedback on this topic!

New from OPB

Posted on

Make sure to check out the following recent additions to the website:

  • Updated printable UW Fact Cards for your wallets and pockets and new UW Fast Facts! Please let us know if you have any questions.
  • Updated brief on Institutional autonomy among UW peer institutions across the US.
  • Final Decision Summary and Overview report on Activity Based Budgeting.

We are working on a website overhaul that we hope to roll out in the coming months, and our main aim is to make OPB information and resources as easy (and pleasant) to find as possible. Stay tuned!

Texas Adopts Controversial Higher Ed Reforms

Posted on

We’ve blogged previously about the controversial reforms being aggressively pursued by Governor Perry and various of the appointees he has placed on Texas higher education governing boards and in university administrations. The reforms were initially developed by the conservative think tank the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), and are centered around placing the student in a stronger consumer role, basing professor pay and tenure more directly on student evaluations, creating a bright line between teaching and research funding, and changing the state funding model from one that subsidizes institutions to one that provides grants directly to students. Many may recognize these as reforms long advocated for in the K-12 sector for some time.

After a protracted battle between a variety of interested parties (academics, administrators, legislators, state leaders, alumni, lobbyists and more), the University of Texas System Board of Regents unanimously approved what they called ‘A Framework for Advancing Excellence Throughout the University of Texas System‘ at their May meeting. An action plan released last week provided a glimpse at the compromises made to quell strong opposition.

More flexible than initially feared, the action plan allows institutions to tailor the reforms to their institutions. Major system-wide goals include:

  • Increased degree production
  • Increased use of online and blended instruction
  • Development of performance incentives for professors
  • Strengthening of post-tenure review for professors
  • Creation of external review for schools and colleges within the institution
  • Critical review of PhD programs and decreased time to PhD
  • Increased research collaboration, especially with non-academic partners
  • Increased research and philanthropic funding
  • Increased administrative efficiency through standardized systems, sharing of services, and better space utilization

Although much less divisive than the specific reforms championed by TPPF, these goals are ambitious enough to put Texas in a category of its own nationwide. How  individual institutions endeavor to implement the action plan in the near future, and the extent to which they engage faculty in the process, will likely determine the mood and direction in Texas public higher education for some time.

In the meantime, Florida Governor Rick Scott is indicating a desire to follow Rick Perry’s lead on this issue.

A New Measure for College Success?

Posted on

Education Sector, an education policy think tank, recently released a report entitled “Debt to Degree,” which measures the ratio of student and parent, government-backed loans taken by students to the number of credentials awarded by an institution per year.  Based on this, the report concludes that:

  • Across all institutions and sectors, for each degree awarded in 2008/2009, $18,102 was borrowed
  • Degree to credential ratios varied considerably across institution types:  On average, families at four-year public institutions borrowed $16,247 per degree, compared to $21,827 at private four-years, and $43,383 at for-profit schools
  • Among elite research universities, Princeton, with its no-loan financial aid policy, had the lowest debt to credential ratio ($2,385), while NYU had the highest ratio ($25,886), due to its small endowment and less wealthy student body
  • Washington state has one of the lowest borrowing to credential ratios in the nation, with debt to degree ratios in the $5,000 to $9,999 range

Note that the study excluded private loans and Perkins loans, which some argue might mask even larger debt burdens, particularly at for-profit schools where institutional financial aid is limited. To read more about the study, including its limitations, check out the Chronicle’s and Inside Higher Ed’s articles.