Recession Effects on Opportunity for Higher Education

I am looking at indicators that describe disruption in college access, choice and retention that students are facing and adjusting to because of the current economic recession. Here is what I have found in data so far:

Access
So far college continuation rates for recent high school graduates do not appear to be affected. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the college continuation rate for recent high school graduates was at a record high in October 2008. Data are from the Current Population Survey. The 2009 data will not be available until spring.

Choice
Data from the annual UCLA survey of American 4-year college freshmen show sudden and significant deterioration in college choice beginning in 2006. Up to that point about 70 percent of 4-year college freshmen reported that they were enrolled in their first choice college. This share then dropped to 67.3% in 2006, 64.1% in 2007 and 60.7% in 2008. At the same time the share of these freshmen reporting that the offer of financial assistance was an important factor in their college choice rose from 34.3% in 2006, to 39.4% in 2007 and 43.0% in 2008. However, the share of these 4-year college freshmen reporting that there was a major concern about their ability to finance their college education dropped from 13.2% in 2005, to 11.6% in 2006, 9.5% in 2007 and 10.9% in 2008.

Pell Grant recipient data points to a record low share of recipients enrolled in public and private 4-year colleges and universities. These data are from the Office of Postsecondary Education, which administers the Pell Grant program. This a long term issue, but one that has sped up during the recession. In FY2007 a record low 45.0 % of Pell Grant recipients were enrolled in 4-year colleges. This dropped to 44.0% in FY2008, and a preliminary 41.3% for FY2009.

Persistence
ACT has published data on frosh-to-soph persistence since 1983. We are looking at these data now. For all college freshmen this persistence rate to the sophomore year at the same institution dropped from 68.7% in 2006, to 68.1% in 2007, to 66.1% in 2008, to 66.2% by 2009. We have much more analysis to do of these data, but this factoid jumped out at me when I started graphing the data.

Ranked Colleges and Universities that Exemplify Social Inclusion

Most of elite higher education in the United States practices class warfare against classes not already richly served by these institutions. We have a large group of ranked of colleges and universities that measure themselves by class exclusive criteria like college admissions test scores, admissions selectivity, and family income. They higher educate the rich and they are proud of it. They are enriching those born into affluence—those from inherited privilege classes. They offer a country club campus atmosphere needed to attract the affluent clientele they wish to enroll. They are also largely divorced from the national challenge of higher educating the growing share of the country’s population that is low income. There are whole recruiting, testing and college ranking industries that either exist to support this class structure of higher education or profit from it.

So it is quite unusual to find ranked colleges and universities that buck this trend and are deliberately practicing social inclusion. Or more accurately, these institutions are engaged in the higher education of the growing share of the country’s population that was born into low or lower-middle income families. This population is soon to become a majority of the K-12 student population, later to become a majority of higher education enrollments, and will eventually become a majority of the adult population, parents, taxpayers, workforce and voting citizens. These socially inclusive and exemplary institutions deserve recognition for their notable efforts to reach out to students who were born into low-income families.

We use two sets of criteria to identify these institutions. Group I institutions are ranked by U.S. News as among the top 100 universities and liberal arts colleges and have notably large shares of undergraduate students with Pell Grants. Group II institutions are also ranked by U.S. News among the top 125 universities and top 125 liberal arts colleges and have increased their enrollment of Pell Grant recipients at greater rates than the national growth rate in Pell Grant recipients. Only five of these 250 colleges and universities meet this criteria of engagement.

Group I

Berea College, Berea, Kentucky. This college was founded in 1855 as the first co-educational, interracial college in the South to serve low-income students primarily from Appalachia. An applicant with a family income above $40,000 is not admissible. In 2004 87.4% of its students received Pell Grants.

Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts. In 2004 27.7% of the undergraduates at Smith were Pell Grant recipients. In that year the average Pell Grant share among the U.S. News top 50 national liberal arts colleges was 12.8%. At Smith the number of Pell Grant recipients has risen from 484 in 1992 to a peak of 716 by 2002. In 2009 there were still 645 Pell Grant recipients on campus. Unfortunately these numbers have been slipping slowly but steadily since 2002.

Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts. In 2004 24.2% of undergraduates received Pell Grants, compared to 12.8% for all top 50 national liberal arts colleges that year. The number of Pell Grant recipients at Mount Holyoke has increased from 390 in 1992 to a peak of 448 in 2002. Since then this number has declined very slightly to 432 by 2009.

University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. In 2004 38.7% of undergraduate students at UCLA received Pell Grants. This compares to 20.0% among all U.S. News top 50 national universities that year. The number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled at UCLA has increased from 6819 in 1992 to a peak of 9686 in 2004. Between 2004 and 2009 the number of Pell Grant recipients has declined steadily to 8852.

University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, California. In 2004 34.7% of undergraduate students at Berkeley received Pell Grants, compared to 20.0% for all top 50 “best” national universities as defined by U.S. News. The number of Pell Grant recipients at Berkeley increased from 5858 in 1992 to a record peak of 7989 by 2009.

University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California. UC-San Diego increased its enrollment of Pell Grant recipients from 4608 in 2000 and 4680 in 2001 to 6458 in 2006 and 6817 in 2007, or by 42.9%. Since then the University has enrolled 7414 in 2008 and 8017 so far for 2009.

Group II

Between 2000+2001 and 2006+2007 the number of Pell Grant recipients in U.S. higher education institutions increased by 37.3%, from about 3.76 million to about 5.17 million students. Among the 125 “best” national universities (as defined by U.S. News and World Report), just four increased their own enrollment of Pell Grant recipients by more than 37.3%. Among the 125 “best” liberal arts colleges in the U.S. just one increased it’s own enrollment of Pell Grant recipients by more than 37.3%.

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard increased its enrollment of Pell Grant recipients from 394 in 2000 and 636 in 2001 to 763 in 2006 and 808 in 2007, or by 52.5%. The number for 2008 was 940, and so far for 2009 the number is 959.

University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California. UC-San Diego increased its enrollment of Pell Grant recipients from 4608 in 2000 and 4680 in 2001 to 6458 in 2006 and 6817 in 2007, or by 42.9%. Since then the University has enrolled 7414 in 2008 and 8017 so far for 2009.

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pitt enrolled 3863 Pell Grant recipients in 2000 and 3828 in 2001. For 2006 Pitt enrolled 5080 Pell recipients, and 5719 for 2007, for an increase of 40.4%. Since then Pitt enrolled 5163 in 2008 and 4961 so far for 2009.

Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Arizona State enrolled 8590 Pell Grant recipients in 2000 and 8653 in 2001. Then in 2006 ASU enrolled 12,242, and for 2007 enrolled 11,783, for an increase of 39.3%. Since then ASU enrolled 11,779 Pell recipients in 2008 and 13,280 so far for in 2009.

University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia. Richmond enrolled 184 Pell Grant recipients in 2000 and 177 in 2001. By 2006 Richmond enrolled 242 Pell recipients, and 276 in 2007. This was an increase of 43.5%. In 2008 Richmond enrolled 305, and 351 so far in 2009.

We give honorable mentions to institutions that increased their Pell Grant enrollments by 30% to 37.2% between 2000+2001 and 2006+2007. The universities are: University of Denver, Loyola University of Chicago, University of California-Davis, Illinois Institute of Technology and the University of California-Riverside. The liberal arts colleges are Ursinus College, Agnes Scott College, Randolph College, Lake Forest College and Spellman College. Complete results for all 250 institutions ranked by U.S. News are available in the December 2007 issue (#186) of Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY. Online Pell Grant recipient data by institution is available at: https://cod.ed.gov/cod/LoginPage

Someday I will prepare a parallel Hall of Shame identifying the leading Class Warriors among the most Class Exclusive Gated Communities and Country Clubs. This will be a very much longer list.

The Major Factors Influencing Federal Education Legislation

Robert Andringa prepared this list of what influenced federal education legislation in 1976 when he was minority staff director, House Committee on Education and Labor. For those of us who fancy our policy analysis as directly influencing how laws are made, this is a humbling lesson. - Tom

"The following list of major influences shaping federal education laws was put together in consultation with other Hill staff, but I take full responsibility for whatever reactions it generates! The variables are listed in the order in which I see their importance at this time.

1. Personal judgment and values of usually no more than 6-10 Congressmen and staff.

Some major bills have many issues…each issue is normally shaped and resolved by a small handful of people, later ratified by the full House and Senate…“judgments and values” are influenced by personal experience and the effect of the other items on this list.

2. Strong views of respected and trusted friends.

Each Member has a few trusted friends with knowledge in some particular area…these are friends from his hometown, experts with whom he has developed a friendship over the years, other Members, staff, etc.

3. Assumptions about the economy and budget.

These assumptions influence a Member’s interest in creating new programs or in cutting back on program authorities…also his or her sense of priorities among various educational needs.

4. Public opinion and the popular media.

Most Members do not support ideas which they feel do not have, or could not get, general public support…many shape their perceptions about educational needs by reading popular, rather than specialized, publications…the few people most involved in a legislative area do read more of the specialized newsletters and journals.

5. Strong views and efforts of major interest groups.

The education lobby is not one of strongest in Washington…yet major associations and coalitions can force consideration of issues they feel important…sometimes consensus among interest groups is important and sometimes a weakly developed consensus backfires.

6. Descriptive information about federal programs.

Most of this comes from the executive branch and a few educational associations…Members relate this to what they personally expect a program to accomplish.

7. Congressional hearings.

Attendance is often low, but “key Members” are usually present…educators often present long, dull papers full of jargon…many witnesses are not willing to be completely candid in formal, on-the-record sessions...field hearings [are] more important, although they are infrequent.

8. General Accounting Office reports and other independent reports on programs.

GAO studies get acceptance because GAO is [an] arm of the legislative branch and its studies are done in cooperation with Members…same applies to Congressional Research Service…sometimes other non-federal studies of existing federal programs are given similar credibility.

9. Policy research studies and reports.

These are often too long, full of jargon or statistics few understand…few people on the Hill have time to read such things…some studies use old data or come up with ideas Members have long since rejected…most influence from these reports must come indirectly through the other items on the list.

10. Administration views and lobby efforts.

Congress naturally puts this factor low when the majority party is different from that of the President…proposals often reflect budget constraints rather than sound educational policy…recommendations are often submitted too late in the process…recommendations of [a] technical nature to improve current programs have [a] much better success rate.

11. Program evaluation studies.

Most of these done by the U.S. Office of Education under contract…many are too late and use data that are too old…many studies try to quantify results that can not easily be quantified…most studies [are] done in isolation from other similar studies and miss the “big picture”…but there have been a few exceptions."

Shifting Freshman Market Shares

On April 28th the Bureau of Labor Statistics released it’s annual report College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2008 High School Graduates. BLS has released this report annually since 1959. These are data collected by the Census Bureau in the October supplement to the Current population Survey. The reported data provide the first comprehensive look at the transition from high school into college in 2008. I know we are all busy speculating what is going to happen in the fall during this the second year of the current economic recession.

The media have not yet reported from these powerful BLS data. I was blown away by one part of these data: the massive shift of high school graduates entering college through the 2-year portal and away from the 4-year portal. In 2001 68.1% of college freshmen who were recent high school graduates were enrolled in 4-year institutions (and 31.9% in 2-year institutions). Then in 2002 freshmen began a gradual shift away from 4-year to 2-year colleges. By 2007 the share entering 4-year colleges and universities had dropped to 64.1% (and 2-year had risen to 35.8%).

Then the recession began in December 2007. By fall 2008 the economy was in free fall. Families had lost a great deal of their investments in the stock market. And the share of 4-year college freshmen who were recent high school graduates dropped to 59.7% (while the 2-year college share rose to 40.3%). In one year, between 2007 and 2008, there was 4.4% shift in market share from 4-year to 2-year colleges.

Out of 2,161,000 fall 2008 freshmen this means that about 95,000 college freshmen had shifted from 4-year to 2-year colleges compared to the 2007 market shares. Compared to the 4-year market share in 2001 this means that in 2008 about 181,500 college freshmen have shifted from 4-year to 2-year colleges to begin their higher education careers.

The 2008 college continuation rate in 2008 was 68.6% which ties the record rate set in 2005. These 2008 freshmen are also attending college full-time at record high rates. So the story is this: the kids are trying hard to get a college education, but the world around them is failing them. The system is failing them.

We see why in another set of data that we are mining: the 2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. The financial barriers to higher education faced by students from the bottom half of the family income distribution are greater than they have been since these data were first reported in 1990. No wonder our country feels like it is in free-fall, because it is.

Endowing The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education

In December 2008 I completed my personal pledge to endow The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, DC. My 60 checks between 2001 and 2008 totaled $100,000. I had planned to complete my gift by the time I reached retirement age and I just barely managed to do so, since I turned 66 on February 6th, 2009.

My endowment gift to the Pell Institute is an unrestricted gift to support and advance the research agenda of the Institute. I decided to do so a decade ago because closing the gap in higher educational opportunity between those born into low-income families and those born into affluent families would not be accomplished in my lifetime. In fact this gap has been widening almost steadily since the advent of regressive social policy in the United States around 1980.

My personal motivation for endowing the Pell Institute with my gift reflects my family’s story of what America has meant to us. In 1957 when I was in the 9th grade in high school in Roseville, Minnesota, my American Studies teacher Ms. Bergeron assigned my class the task of researching and writing our families’ American family histories. Five decades after I turned in my high school paper I am still working on that assignment. Family history has become a lifelong hobby, and I am not done yet with either life or that assignment.

My travels have taken me from cemeteries in Albany, New York to Albany, Oregon. In 1975 I went to Europe to see where my ancestors had come from and try to understand why they left their homelands for America. Of the five places I visited one, in Prussia (now Poland) I knew the motivation to emigrate was to escape conscription into Otto von Bismark’s armies. These were draft dodgers.

But in the other four places I was stunned to find that my ancestors had lived in the shadow of castles. My ancestors were share croppers, or serfs, and did not own the land they farmed. They worked for the people who lived in the castles and owned the land. These places included Sweden (Skane), East Germany (Neuenkirchen), West Germany (Oberderdingen) and Switzerland (Graubunden). My farmer ancestors saw that good farm land was available free or at least cheap in the United States, and so they left and settled in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota.

When these ancestors came to America between about 1840 and 1880 they came as farmers, and opportunity in the agrarian economy of that era meant owning and working your own land. America provided that opportunity in abundance and my ancestors benefited directly from the opportunities America offered but which were not available in Sweden, Prussia, Neubrandenburg, Mecklinburg and Switzerland.

My ancestors also benefited from the developing educational system America decided it needed. My great grandfather Nels Martensson left Sweden at age 22 and signed his name with his mark: “X”. My grandfather Frank Mortenson had a grade school education and beautiful penmanship—which he learned and of which he must have been proud. My father Allen Mortenson earned a bachelor’s degree, I earned a master’s degree, and my daughter is now working on her PhD at the University of Michigan. In every respect the educational opportunities available to my family in America have brought our family to a condition not available to our peasant ancestors in Europe.

The modern equivalent to the opportunity of land ownership that my ancestors sought when they emigrated from Europe for America is higher education. Since about 1973 access to the American middle class is through higher education. Other work that paid well in agriculture, manufacturing and some other industries has been replaced with work in other industries such as education and health care, business and professional services, leisure and hospitality services and other service industries that require higher education.

Today both immigrants and natives can prosper only if they have the education and training that only higher education provides. Higher education has become the gatekeeper to the American middle class experience. And under regressive policy choices that access has been largely limited to those that inherit privilege by their birth. The United States is becoming the kind of country that my ancestors fled when they left Europe for the opportunities available in America. And Europe is starting to look more like the progressive America that we once were.

My gift is an endorsement of the work of The Pell Institute. Long after I have turned to dust and ashes and I have been forgotten, the challenge to restore America to a land of opportunity for those willing to work for it will remain. I wish my successors well in meeting that challenge. This country’s survival depends on restoring the national commitment to helping everyone maximize their human potential and economic productivity.

Funeral of Senator Claiborne Pell

On Monday, January 5, 2008, I attended the funeral of former Senator Claiborne de Borda Pell in Newport, Rhode Island. I attended with Dr. Arnold Mitchem, President of the Council for Opportunity in Education, Dr. Chandra Taylor Smith, Director of the Pell Institute for the Study of Higher Education, and two TRiO directors from Rhode Island.

I had known for years that when this inevitable day arrived I wanted to be there. I wanted to show and express my profound respect for the life of this very great man. It is no accident that I am a Senior Scholar at The Pell Institute—we named this think tank in honor of Senator Pell. So when his passing on January 1st was announced to the media, I scrambled to clear my schedule, get an airplane ticket to Providence, find a hotel room in Newport, and arrange for a shuttle ride between Providence and Newport.

Trinity Episcopal Church in Newport was filled to its limit—600 to 700 people—who had their own reasons for attending Senator Pell’s funeral. Many were family members (the Pell Family is very large), some were former staff of the Senator from his long career in Washington, and his very many friends from Rhode Island and New England. Also in attendance were Senator Ted Kennedy, President Bill Clinton, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden, Senator Jack Reed—all of whom gave moving eulogies for Senator Pell. I also noted Senators Durbin, Reid, Sarbanes, Leahy, Chaffee, Whitehouse, Lieberman, Bingaman, Dodd, as well as many congressmen with names that included Kennedy.

What I also noticed about those attending this funeral was the almost total absence of higher education leadership at this important funeral. Outside of TRiO leadership, there was no one I could recognize from Washington, DC, based higher education organizations. There was no one I could recognize from the financial aid community. Despite the enormity of the federal Pell Grant program, none of those who lobby for it’s funding or package Pell Grants for students at institutions could find time to clear their schedules and attend his final public event.

So I have been thinking about what the absence of most of the higher education community or their representatives at Senator Pell’s funeral means. Are they only in it for the money? What does this say about the life of this very great man when a good share of the U.S. Senate can break away from busy schedules in Washington but the higher education leadership in that same city cannot attend? Where was NASFAA, of all organizations?

Should Children Vote? (Or Who Cares about the Future?)

With the election now 14 days away, the political promises are now piling up at least thigh deep. Each presidential candidate has promised new funding commitments and tax cuts. These tax cuts are promised at the same time the federal government is already running huge budget deficits. The current budget deficits are financed by issuing debt that must be repaid with interest. The current political promises—regardless of which presidential candidate is elected—will add to our national debt.

It is unrealistic to write off these political promises as simply the political silly season, and hope that politicians will regain their grip on economic reality after the November 4^th election. Since about 1980 during the neoliberal era of smaller government, lower taxes, and unrestrained federal spending the federal budget has remained persistently out of balance except for a brief period in the late 1990s. In this decade we have initiated two wars financed entirely on credit. Now with the economic meltdown an unfathomable $700 billion of credit has just been allocated to restore credit market liquidity. This adds to our borrowing from our future. Add global warming to this balance sheet and most people agree that our current lifestyles are not sustainable.

All of these political promises and program commitments involve borrowing against our country’s future. In effect we are taking from the lives of our children to support lifestyles we have neither earned nor deserve. We are increasingly living beyond our means. But spend we do. And we do this on credit.

I dare say politicians who were accountable to children would view their responsibilities to the future far differently than do today’s politicians. Forget the political blather about commitment to children and their futures—deeds are what counts. And it is their record of economic and environmental misdeeds that requires political correction.

So I propose that children get to vote in elections, and that their votes count equally with those of adults who have supported the current political and economic irresponsibility. That vote franchise should be exercised through their custodial parents. It is parents who have the most visceral commitment to their children’s futures. So in a family of two parents and three children there would be five votes cast in elections. Each parent would cast their own vote, then together they would cast three more votes for those who they felt best addressed the needs and futures of their children.

An office-seeking political candidate would now have to pander to the children’s vote, exercised through their parents. Since children will outlive their parents and their elected representatives, politicians would be expected to look much farther into the future that they have done for the last 28 years. Greater attention to economic and environmental issues should result than what we have witnessed during the last 28 years of mismanagement and irresponsibility.