Keeping College Affordable is Essential
By Martha J. Kanter
Martha J. Kanter is a distinguished visiting professor of higher education and a senior fellow at New
York University. In 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Kanter to serve as the U.S. Under
Secretary of Education, with oversight responsibility for all federal postsecondary statutory, regulatory and administrative policies and programs for the U.S. Department of Education, including the
$175 billion annual federal student aid programs, higher education, adult education, career-technical
education, international education, and six White House Initiatives. Focusing on increasing college
access, affordability, quality and completion, Kanter oversaw the successful implementation of the
Direct Student Loan program. Previously, she served as president of De Anza College and then chancellor of the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. She holds a B.A. degree in sociology from
Brandeis University, a M.Ed. from Harvard University, and an Ed.D. from the University of San
Francisco. Her academic interests include: the confluence of access, equity and excellence; the intersection of policy and politics in American higher education; and the contributions of America’s community colleges to the nation’s social fabric, civic future, and economy.
I think by far the most important bill in our
whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of
freedom, and happiness.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786
K
eeping college affordable is essential. Having—or not having—a college degree determines access to most
economic, social, civic, and advanced educational opportunities in America. Increasing
the number of college-educated Americans is
therefore critical for solving complex domestic
challenges, spurring innovation, and achieving
economic recovery and long-term prosperity in
a competitive, technological, global society.
Earning a degree depends on keeping college
affordable. Affordability allows us to fulfill the
promise of our founding fathers: keep advancement open to all; base rewards on hard work
and the strength of ideas, not on family connections and inheritance.1 Affordability is also
vital for graduates. Burdened by mountains of
college debt, students and their families may be
unable to sustain a house, a car, or even living
necessities. Collectively, they may be too hard
pressed to take the risks that made America a
world leader.
The warning signs are clear. The danger is
imminent. College is becoming less affordable.
Middle class families are priced out; low-income
families believe it is out of reach. Politicians and
policymakers must keep college affordable, or
24
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
an essential element of what makes America
distinctive will vanish.
A BRIEF HISTORY
Education is by far the biggest and the most
hopeful of the Nation’s enterprises. Long ago
our people recognized that education for all
is not only democracy’s obligation but its
necessity. Education is the foundation of
democratic liberties. Without an educated
citizenry alert to preserve and extend freedom, it would not long endure.
— President Truman’s Commission on
Higher Education, 1947
A college education is critical to stimulating upward mobility. Centuries of Jesuit values
and traditions, embodied in the admonitions
of Pope Francis,2 and centuries of economic
and social theory, culminating in the research
of Thomas Piketty,3 inform this chapter.
Education is key to a nation’s health and intergenerational success. Redirecting a fraction of
the profits of our nation’s millionaires and billionaires to assuring “education for all” would
sustain all of us, not just the middle class and
the poor.4
For many years our nation possessed a
different moral, civic, economic, and social
character. FDR and the New Deal put many
unemployed people to work in the recovery
effort.5 Higher education grew and diversified, as America emerged from the Great
Depression, though college still benefited
the few. The economy expanded as veterans
returned home and entered the workforce in
droves after World War II. Colleges grew as
ex-soldiers studied under the GI Bill, and as
women demanded access to careers beyond the
teaching and health professions.
This increase in non-traditional populations, along with the academic and professional
demands of privileged students, stirred an historic commitment to affordability. Beginning
with the generous student aid provisions of the
GI Bill, and building upon the nation’s optimism
and social conscience, the Roosevelt, Truman,
and Eisenhower administrations enacted and
reauthorized several federal grant and scholarship programs. These programs ensured that
low-income and middle class youth—not only
the wealthy—could afford a postsecondary
education.6
“Equal Opportunity for All”and freedom
from racial and religious discrimination, stated
President Truman’s Commission on Higher
Education (1947), were essential components
of a democratic society.7 Promoting the development of community colleges, the commission pressed states to subsidize tuition for the
first two years of an undergraduate education. Public higher education was virtually
free or provided at a low cost—$1.00 to $5.00
per credit hour—in most states, and colleges
offered many full tuition scholarships.
Stirred by the GI Bill, the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, and the women’s liberation movement, community colleges and state universities expanded dramatically through the
1970s, providing opportunities for unprecedented numbers of low-income and middle
class Americans. American higher education
flourished.
In 1965, Congress passed and President
Johnson signed the Higher Education Act
(HEA). The act focused on “support” and
“improvement,” not on “disruption” and
“reform”—today’s prevalent catchwords. The
HEA included three major grant programs: the
Economic Opportunity Grant (subsequently
named the Basic Educational Opportunity
Grant—BEOG—and later the Pell Grant),
the National Defense Student Loan Program
(originally enacted in 1958; later named the
National or Federal Direct Student Loan Program—NDSL), and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG). The act
also offered low-interest loan programs for students who did not meet the income eligibility
requirements for financial aid.
HEA enabled millions of non-traditional
students—women, minorities, veterans, and
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
military deferred young men—to enter college
during and after the Vietnam War years. In 1978,
President Carter signed the Middle Income
Student Assistance Act (MISAA), enabling
families earning less than $25,000 annually to
quality for Pell Grants. The act aimed at adding
1.5 million more students into our nation’s colleges and universities. Amendments permitted
middle class and wealthy parents to borrow up
to $3,000 for each child in college.
President Clinton established two significant national service programs—AmeriCorps
and Vista—a decade after A Nation At Risk
underscored the significance of education for
America’s prosperity and security. A drawnout battle between President Clinton and lenders resulted in removing their authority to
distribute National Student Direct Loans. The
President further enabled college affordability by signing the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997,
allowing families to deduct college tuition from
their income tax payments.
Today, the majority of Americans want a college education, and enrollments and attainments
continue to climb (Figure 1).8 Many citizens and
government officials see higher education as a
civil right, but Congress has enacted no legislation recognizing that right. Instead, the Bush
administration dismantled the larger civic and
social purposes of American higher education.
Policymakers emphasized workforce preparation and career training. They increased financial incentives, encouraged for-profit higher
education, and established and expanded K–12
charter schools. The Bush administration permitted for-profit postsecondary institutions
to fund 85 percent—later 90 percent—of their
revenues with federal student aid. The GI Bill
or private funds could provide the remaining
ten percent. The proportion of career colleges
among higher education institutions grew from
eight to 13 percent between 2008 and 2012.
After Congress reauthorized the Higher
Education Opportunity Act in August 2008,
Figure 1. Population, Age 25 and Over, by Educational Attainment, Various Years 1940 to 1962,
and Continuous Years 1964 to 2013
Population in millions
250
Bachelor's Degree
or Higher
High School,
Some College
200
Less than
High School
150
100
50
0
1940 47 50 52 57 59 60 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
Year
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March Current Population Survey, 1947, 1952–2002; Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the
Current Population Survey, 2003–2013; Census of Population, 1940–1980.
25
26
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
the Obama administration’s Department of
Education sought to curb the unintended consequences of the use of federal funds. Hundreds of for-profit and some public institutions
with low graduation and high default rates, the
department found, left thousands of students
burdened by unmanageable debt. During its
first term, the Obama administration promulgated 13 program integrity rules that resulted in
on-time payments for the majority of students
who took out loans directly from the Education
Department.9
The department’s effective actions to preserve
college access and affordability led to dramatic
growth in college enrollments. Undergraduate and graduate enrollments combined grew
to nearly 16 million students between 1991 and
2001—an 11 percent increase. An additional 32
percent increase between 2001 and 2011 brought
the total to 21 million Americans.10 Supporting growth for low-income students, President
Obama called for dramatic increases to the Pell
Grant program. In 2010, Congress passed and
the President signed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA).11 Pell Grants
increased by more than $1,000 to $5,730, adjusted
to inflationary increases, under the act.12 Fulfilling the promises of our nation’s founders and of
the Truman Commission, the number of lowincome students using Pell Grants increased
from six to nearly ten million between 2008 and
the present, more than a 50 percent increase. The
grants increased the number of students attending higher education from families earning
$10,000 or less by more than 100 percent.
Building upon President Clinton’s accomplishments, the recent redesign of the Direct
Student Loan program provided federal loans
directly to students, thereby cutting out the
lenders.13 The government used the $68 billion
saved to increase Pell Grants and to lower the
federal deficit. A simplified federal loan and
grant application (the “FAFSA”)14 eliminated
nearly half the questions—another breakthrough that facilitated access to student aid.15
As more students took out loans, they
encountered difficulties in paying a reasonable
amount for college and in managing debt after
graduation. These difficulties resulted in the
current affordability controversy, which caused
a rethinking of the purposes and delivery of
federal, state, and institutional student aid.
Sustaining educational opportunity remains a
national challenge.
MAJOR CHALLENGES
Keeping college affordable depends on how our
nation addresses no less than eleven major challenges: widening income disparity, the achievement gap, the under-education of U.S. adults, a
frustrated teaching profession, waning of our
global competitive advantage, rising college
costs, fluctuating student aid, confusing price
structure, marketing, quality, and eroding state
investment.
Growing Economic Inequality
The gap between rich and poor in the U.S. and
across the globe worsened substantially during the last decade.16 The richest one percent of
Americans received 65 percent of the nation’s
income growth from 2002 to 2007. That proportion increased to 95 percent since 2009, a period
when “wages have stagnated while stocks and
corporate profits have soared.”17
Economic inequality produces disheartening long-term consequences for less-educated
Americans in the lower income quartiles.
Approximately 80 percent of high-income students enroll in college, and more than half of
our nation’s high-income students attain a college degree. By contrast, only 29 percent of lowincome students matriculate, and fewer than
one in ten graduate.18 “Children born to families in the top income quintile have a four in ten
chance of remaining in that income group, on
into adulthood,” reported the Pew Charitable
Trusts. “Likewise, children born to families in
the bottom quintile have a four in ten chance of
staying there.”19
Widening Achievement Gap
The U.S. high school graduation rate increased
from 71 percent to 78 percent between 1995
and 2010—the best rate in decades.20 But the
college enrollment and graduation rates of
non-white students have lagged behind the
rates of their white peers for the last 50 years.21
Students from low-income families earn bachelors’ degrees at one-eighth the rate—nine percent vs. 75 percent—of their more advantaged
counterparts by age 24.22
We now have, for the first time, a growing
majority of non-white students in our elementary, middle, and secondary schools.23 We’ve
made some progress in college entrance rates.
Between 2003 and 2010, for example, the proportion of Hispanics entering college increased
from 24 percent to 32 percent. But we must
make more progress in educating this soon-tobe majority in the entire population.
Educating More Adults
Our nation will grow from 320 million to
approximately 400 million residents by 2050.24
Today, about 93 million U.S. adults (47 percent) have little or no college education; 75 million function at or below basic literacy levels.25
These statistics are disturbing, but 47 percent
represents a significant reduction from decades
past. Returning veterans and more women—
veterans and non-veterans—entered college in
droves following World War II and in ensuing
decades. By doing as well or better than privileged students already in college, these adults
confirmed the Truman Commission’s contention that higher education for the middle class
was a worthy goal.26
Subsequent actions undermined access to
affordable postsecondary education for all
Americans. One-third of our nation’s children
are not prepared for kindergarten; many lag
two or more years behind in reading by the
3rd and 4th grades.27 Too many children lack
highly educated parents and other caring adults
who could nurture their intellectual and physical development. Their absence jeopardizes the
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
pipeline extending through college, career, and
adult life.
The post-traditional adult population
will provide two-thirds of college graduates
between now and 2020. High school graduates
will make up the remaining third.28 Increasing
the proportion of college-educated adults,
especially from underrepresented populations
will, in turn, safeguard a higher quality lifelong
education for future generations.
A Frustrated Teaching Profession
Keeping college affordable is key to producing
and sustaining a vibrant, world-class teaching
workforce. Far too many students now opt out of
the teaching profession. Teachers report feeling
unappreciated, undervalued, and constrained—
even strangled—by the plethora of federal and
state bureaucratic regulations, the metricizing of classroom instruction (too many tests),
and low wages. They want better professional
development, high quality data, and research
enabling them improve their teaching and raise
learning outcomes for increasingly diversified classrooms. Teachers are on the defensive
in many political and policy fights, including
tenure, seniority, retention, medical benefits,
and pensions. These challenges drive too many
Americans from a profession for which they initially had great interest, passion, and talent.
The growing nonwhite student majority
demands a teaching workforce that reflects
the languages and cultures represented in
our schools. Only 14 percent of K–12 teachers
are Hispanic and/or African-American; two
percent are African American males. These
disparities affect the composition of our education workforce in non-cognitive and academic
dimensions. Black male youth, lacking positive
role models, are more likely to end up in prison
than to graduate from college.29 The average
cost to rehabilitate a young African American
in prison begins at $50,000 annually. Congress
and ultimately our nation’s taxpayers must
bear the cost of prison construction and maintenance, apart from the human capital costs.
27
28
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Global Competitiveness
Ensuring college affordability has global consequences. A generation ago, the U.S. was first
in the world in the percentage of adults with
an associate’s or bachelor’s degree. But we were
16th in the world in 2009 in college attainment
among young adults, ages 25 to 34 years old.
We’ve made some progress since then, moving from 14th in 2012 to 11th now—tied with
Israel. In this age group, 43 percent now hold
an associate’s or bachelor’s degree. But by comparison, more than 50 percent of young adults
in the top performers—South Korea, Japan,
and Canada—are college graduates.30 President
Obama calls this ranking “unacceptable, but…
not irreversible.” 31 Our national goals must
include restoring the U.S. to first in the world
and sustaining our global status.
A falling-off in degree production is not the
only result of declining college affordability. A
recent 24-country survey assessed adult competencies in literacy, numeracy, and problem
solving in technology rich environments. These
competencies are essential skills for success in
the workplace and in social settings.32 The U.S.
performs below the international average in all
three areas (Figure 2). A lack of education and
economic opportunity explains the wider gaps
between the more and less proficient adults.33
Rising College Costs
Average tuition at a public four-year college
has increased by more than 250 percent in
the last three decades.
— U.S. Department of Education
Cost data, research, policy debates, political
conflicts, and media reports about the escalation of college costs have convinced many
Americans that entering college will entail financial hardship, or will be impossible to afford.
Measured in current dollars, college tuition
and fees increased by 439 percent between 1984
and 2007, outpacing growth in other economic
Figure 2. Adult Competencies: Percent of Adults in Top Two Proficiency Categories
Percent
70
U.S. Average
International
Average
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
55–65
45–54
35–44
25–34
Age
Source: M. Goodman, R. Finnegan, L. Mohadjer, T. Krenzke, and J. Hogan. Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem Solving in TechnologyRich Environments Among U.S. Adults: Results from the Program for the International Assessmant of Adult Competencies 2012: First
Look (NCES 2014–008). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013.
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
sectors. The cost of medical care, the sector
showing the second largest increase, grew by
251 percent during that period. Median family income grew by only 147 percent, while the
cost of living increased by 106 percent. Table 1
shows the average annual percentage increases
in inflation-adjusted prices by decade.34 In
2012–13, a year at a four-year college, including
tuition, room, and board, averaged $12,100 and
$23,800 after grants and tax credits at public
and private institutions, respectively.35
Scholarship funding, designed to offset college costs for the middle class, have declined
for several decades. From the 1970s through
the mid-1980s, Pell Grants covered more than
two-thirds of the cost of attending a public
university and just about all of community college tuition for low-income Americans. Today,
these grants cover less than one-third of public
university costs and less than half of community college costs.36 Nor has federal work-study
funding kept pace with student need, demand,
or inflation. The federal work-study appropriation decreased from $1.3 billion in 2002–03 to
$978 million in 2012–13. Meanwhile, the number of qualified low-income students increased
by more than 50 percent in just the past five
years. Long waiting lists for work-study positions abound almost everywhere.37
Four programs garner major attention in
the affordability discussion: the Pell Grants,
the GI Bill, the student loan program, and the
loan forgiveness program. Elements of each
program were preserved through the last recession, but all suffered from more complexity and
unintended consequences.
Pell Grants are not entitlements, and advocates engage in a challenging annual fight to
keep the grants available for low-income students and to align grant increases with inflation.38 The compromise: shavings off of the core
program while adding discretionary funds to
the base. The Obama Administration secured
a Congressional commitment to increase the
basic Pell Grant from $4,731 in 2008–09 to
$5,730 for 2014–15 for students from families
with no expected family contribution. But this
20 percent increase for the 80 percent of students attending public universities occurred
when state reductions in public higher education funding averaged 20 percent or more.
To make matters worse, for-profit institutions
of higher education—13 percent of postsecondary enrollments—consume about 25 percent of
Pell Grant funding. Thousands of students leave
those schools due to their high costs, defaulting
on their federal and private loans. For-profit
institutions of higher education account for
Table 1. Average Annual Percentage Increases in Inflation-Adjusted Published Prices, by Decade,
1984–85 to 2014–15
Tuition and Fees
Tuition and Fees,
Room and Board
PrivatePrivate
NonprofitPublic PublicNonprofitPublic
Four-YearFour-YearTwo-YearFour-YearFour-Year
1984–85 to 1994–95
4.0%4.4%4.6%3.2%2.3%
1994–95 to 2004–05
3.04.02.22.73.0
2004–05 to 2014–15
2.23.52.52.12.8
Sources: The College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges; NCES, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This table
was prepared in October 2014.
Notes: Each number shows the average annual rate of growth of published prices in inflation-adjusted dollars over a ten-year
period. For example, from 2004–05 to 2014–15, average published tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year colleges rose
by an average of 2.2 percent per year beyond increases in the Consumer Price Index. Average tuition and fee prices reflect indistrict charges for public two-year institutions and in-state charges for public four-year institutions.
29
30
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
“31 percent of all student loans and nearly half
of all loan defaults,” notes the U.S. Department
of Education. “About 22 percent of student borrowers at for-profit colleges,” adds the department, “defaulted on their loans within three
years, compared to 13 percent of borrowers at
public colleges.” 39
The GI Bill remains intact. But neither the
GI Bill nor Pell Grants are available year-round,
so veterans and low-income students must seek
other revenues to cover their educational costs in
the summer. Predatory lenders and poor quality
institutions with higher cost programs target veterans and low-income students, further contributing to the dropout and loan default problems.
Student loans skyrocketed over the past
decade—the result of rising college costs and
loosened restrictions on eligibility. The majority of students are saddled with debt after graduation, $29,400 on average. Charges at high
cost institutions, predominantly in the private
non-profit and the for-profit sectors, inflate this
average.40 Students at public institutions leave
college owing an average of less than $15,000,
and approximately 40 percent of all students
leave without any debt.41 Loan forgiveness and
consolidation strategies have leveraged, but
have not curtailed the rising costs. The Pell
Grant program and GI Bill, some observers
assert, have become gateways to the loan program—far from the intent of grant programs
aimed at low-income students and veterans.
Too Many College Loan Programs
The complexities of the Federal Student Loan
Program also endanger college affordability.
Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans,
PLUS Loans, and Perkins Loans have different
eligibility conditions and terms, interest rates
and consequences for non- or irregular payments. Many students—especially students
also applying for private loans—have difficulties grasping these differences.42 Too many
Americans feel their debt load is spiraling out
of control, especially when added to home
mortgages, car loans, and credit card debt.
Compounding the problem, too many
low-income adults do not or cannot take full
advantage of the available higher education tax
benefits. These benefits include the American
Opportunity Tax Credit, the Lifetime Learning Credit, Tuition Tax Deduction Credits, 529
Plans, and interest deductions from student
loans. About one in six Americans, notes a recent
government report, did not apply for or use their
tax benefits.43 Elected officials call for raising
awareness about tax credits and income consolidation and repayment options. But financial aid
officers report that far too many undergraduates
lack the knowledge to make sophisticated decisions about paying for college. We sorely need
more financial literacy at all levels of education.
College Asset Savings accounts help lowincome families fund some college costs.44 But,
to date, the federal and state governments have
not executed sustainable plans that replicate or
scale these accounts. The various higher education tax credit programs are a mystery to thousands of families who could benefit. In fact,
elected officials continue to press for action on
raising awareness about tax credits and income
consolidation and repayment options.
Confusing Sticker Prices, Net Prices, and
Tuition Discounts
Variability in pricing also affects college affordability. Colleges advertise the sticker price for
tuition, which varies from year to year. But
the majority of institutions use institutional,
state, and/or federal student aid to discount this
price.45 Further, in legislative budget processes,
states can, and do, vary tuition for the public
institutions they oversee.46 Families are justifiably confused and frustrated about the actual
cost.
Intensive Advertising and Marketing Tactics
Most states base public institution funding
on enrollment levels. For-profit institutions
depend on federal funds to cover most operating costs and to assure profitability. The
7,000 institutions of higher education in the
U.S. therefore bombard students and families
with television, Internet, billboard, and print
advertising and marketing. Recruiters and ads
promise the American dream, because enrollments equal revenues in a fiercely competitive
environment. But too many students and families receive inaccurate information about college affordability; the real costs are too often
unknown or misrepresented.
Varied Institutional Quality and Integrity
Americans must make informed choices about
where to invest their effort, time, and money,
but quality assurance safeguards are often a
mystery to the average family. How should
families assess quality? Do these institutions
undergo peer review? Are their accreditation
and program review reports transparent and
easy to understand? An agency approved by
the U.S. Secretary of Education must accredit
an institution for it to access federal student
aid. Therefore, more than 4,500 of the nation’s
7,000 postsecondary institutions are regionally
or nationally accredited.47 But do Americans
know that the mission of regional and national
accreditors is to ensure academic quality? Are
they aware that the quality of accreditors varies, and that many policy makers and politicians question their validity and reliability? 48
Making public understanding even more difficult: rating and ranking systems proliferated
over the past decade. Each system has unique
characteristics that can confuse students and
families wishing information about institutional quality. Paying for a college education is
a challenge, but paying for a poor quality education that leaves students underprepared and
with high debt is disgraceful.
Eroding State Investment
Compounding the college affordability challenge, the recession that began in 2008
restricted access when most states disinvested
in higher education. “Over the decade from
1998–99 to 2008–09,” noted a 2012 report,
“state appropriations as a share of institutional
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
revenues per student dropped from 49 percent
to 34 percent in public research institutions; 56
percent to 43 percent in state colleges; and 64
percent to 57 percent in community colleges.” 49
On average, states removed 20 percent of
institutional support.50 State funding of public
institutions as a share of total revenue declined
from 30.9 percent to 22.3 percent between
FY 2003 and FY 2012 (Table 2).51 The result:
tuition escalation across the country.52 Because
of declining state support between 1998–99
to 2008–09, “the share of total institutional
revenue from tuition rose from 25 percent to
32 percent in public research institutions; 33
percent to 43 percent in state colleges; and 22
percent to 27 percent in community colleges.
The increases did not offset declining state support.” 53 Federal student borrowing increased
from 68.1 percent to 77.4 percent of tuition
revenue at public institutions during the same
years.54
Most states continued to reduce their higher
education budgets since 2009 (Figures 3 and 4).
While 80 percent of students attend America’s
Table 2. State Funding of Public Institutions
as a Share of Total Revenue, FY 2003
to 2012
Fiscal Year
Share of Total Revenue
2003
30.9%
2004
28.2
2005
27.4
2006
30.1
2007
27.5
2008
29.1
2009
28.7
2010
23.6
2011
23.2
2012
22.3
Source: Baylor and Bergeron, 2014, 2.
31
32
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Figure 3. State Funding of Public Institutions, FY 2004 to 2012
Dollars (in billions)
80
$77.6
75
$72.5
$69.8
70
$68.9
65
$61.9
60
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Fiscal Year
Source: Baylor and Bergeron, 2014, 2.
open door public community colleges and state
universities, retrenchment squeezed out millions of students and adjunct faculty. The causes
included the fixed commitments of state finance
obligations, such as Medicaid, and reluctance
to raise taxes or redesign tax policy. These revenue declines led institutions to seek out external revenue streams and to cut costs severely.
They also dramatically increased enrollments
of full-paying out-of-state and international
students, driving out state residents from community colleges and state universities.55
Educators, government officials, business
leaders, philanthropists, and scholars are debating whether American higher education will
remain a public good or become fully privatized.56 California and New York offer some
bright lights. In 2011, Governor Cuomo and
the New York legislature approved a five-year
Compact for Public Higher Education for SUNY
and CUNY. The compact authorized stable,
predictable tuition increases of no more than
$300 per year, while preserving access for lowincome students, absent a fiscal crisis.57 In 2012,
California taxpayers approved Governor Jerry
Brown’s ambitious program of investments in
K–12 and higher education.58
Despite such exemplary state leadership,
students and families bear the brunt of college
costs by assuming larger public and private
loans. Federal student loan debt is estimated
at more than a trillion dollars, and about 50
percent of college students and families do
not repay their loans on a regular basis.59
This alarming debt burden will place the sustainability of loan and grant programs under
intense scrutiny when Congress reauthorizes
the Higher Education Opportunity Act. But
this process places the public and private sectors, elected officials, policy makers, education
leaders, business CEOs, students, and taxpayers at odds, thereby producing incremental
improvement, at best, to college opportunity
and affordability.
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
Figure 4. Declining State Support for Higher Education, One-Year Percent Changes, FY 2012–13
Rhode Island 13.1%
Illinois 12.1
North Dakota 10.4
Alaska 3.8
Texas 3.1
West Virginia 1.7
Maryland 0.6
Delaware 0.3
Hawaii 0.2
Nebraska -0.5
Utah -0.8
Indiana -1.0
Arkansas -1.3
Maine -2.1
New Jersey -2.5
Iowa - 2.6
Kentucky - 3.4
Montana -3.5
North Carolina -3.7
Idaho -4.1
Alabama -4.7
Massachusetts -5.3
New Mexico -5.7
Mississippi - 6.3
Vermont -6.4
Kansas -7.0
Minnesota -7.1
Missouri -7.1
New York -7.1
South Carolina -7.5
Oregon -8.0
South Dakota -8.7
Georgia -11.5
Ohio -11.8
Florida -12.0
Michigan -12.2
Connecticut -12.2
Wyoming -12.7
Wisconsin -13.3
Pennsylvania -13.4
California -13.5
Nevada -14.0
Oklahoma -14.5
Washington -14.5
Virginia -14.7
Tennessee -14.7
Colorado -15.4
Louisiana -18.5
Arizona -25.1
New Hampshire -39.4
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Percent Change
Source: Center for Study of Education Policy, Illinois State University, Grapevine, 2011–12.
10
20
33
34
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
THE PATH FORWARD
We must adopt these five priorities to keep college affordable:
1. Enact and implement College for All.
2.Redesign, combine and simplify federal,
state and institutional student aid and education tax benefits.
3. Improve and ensure the quality of American
higher education.
4.Implement smarter, leaner laws and regulations that strengthen higher education and
protect consumers.
5.Improve and communicate consumer information via a sophisticated national campaign.
To meet these challenges and close the persistent gaps plaguing our nation for decades,
keeping a college education within reach for
all Americans will yield significant intellectual,
social, and economic dividends. Higher education, most scholars affirm, is key to individual
and intergenerational success in work and in
life.60 Scholarship continues to produce new
knowledge that, in turn, generates new and
expanded industries, creates valuable intellectual property, and increases family-sustaining
wages and economic mobility for low and
middle-income Americans. More education
increases demand for K–12 teachers and college
professors who our nation needs to assure high
student achievement in the future.
Our nation must address each challenge,
close the gaps, and dramatically improve levels
of educational attainment. Hiring, supporting,
and retaining our best teachers and professors
will show colleagues how to replicate and scale
the best of what works in America’s classrooms.
College may not be essential for all, but most
Americans want and deserve a postsecondary
education. We must keep college affordable
for the top 100 percent of Americans seeking
opportunity for themselves and their children.
The scholarship and evidence is there. But
tireless political will and bipartisan efforts
will decide the fate of these priorities, so much
needed for assuring the nation’s future.
CONCLUSION
Above all things I hope the education of the
common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely
with the utmost security for the preservation
of a due degree of liberty.
— Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,
December 20, 1787 61
All of us—politicians, policymakers, taxpayers, and consumers—must decide whether to
sustain higher education as a public good, while
encouraging the public and private sectors to
collaborate and compete on educational excellence. Keeping college affordable—critical to this
decision—depends on the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Opportunity Act. The revised
law could afford every American an opportunity to gain access to and complete an affordable, quality postsecondary education. It could
dramatically improve, realign, and simplify outdated, inefficient, and overlapping federal and
state legislative, regulatory, and administrative
authorities. College-educated Americans will
lead healthier, happier, and motivated lives, as
our nation’s founders envisioned; they will prosper socially, civically, and economically.62
Political gridlock—caused by the rise of the
Tea Party, the dismantling of bipartisanship,
and the spigot of uncapped campaign contributions—has stymied a dysfunctional Congress
for five years. Americans label Congress as a
“do-nothing” entity; public confidence is at an
all time low.63 We could achieve the new agenda
if our political parties find common ground
and if oppositional scholars and policy makers
can share ideas and collaborate.64
In 1947, the President’s Commission
proposed the College for All concept. The
Commission sought to “provide for free college attendance through the first two years, for
all youth who can profit from such education,”
and “eliminate racial and religious discrimination.” This concept is still relevant. Under
College for All, our nation’s students and families will know the full cost of an undergraduate
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
education, and the amount owed after graduation. Families below the poverty line would
incur minimal or no debt after college. Middle
class students will afford the first two-years of
college by moving grants, loans, work-study,
and tax credits into a single structure, and by
basing eligibility on a sliding income scale.
College for All would reaffirm higher education as a public good, available to all Americans.
Education, as our political, religious, and academic leaders have reminded us for centuries, is the best assurance of democracy and
opportunity.
student is $5,730 for the July 1, 2014 through June 30,
2015 award year. U.S. Department of Education, 2015;
Congressional Budget Office, 2013.
NOTES
20
1
“Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of
the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a human and generous mind, no expense for
this purpose would be thought extravagant.” Adams,
1776; Jefferson, 1806.
2
A recent teaching of Pope Francis: “The promise was
that when the glass was full, it would overflow benefiting
the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass
is full, it magically gets bigger—nothing ever comes out
for the poor.” Willis, 2013.
3
Piketty, 2014.
4
The Truman Commission developed a model aimed
at sustaining a vibrant democracy: double college attendance by 1960; integrate vocational and liberal education. It proposed the College for All concept, seeking to
provide for free college attendance through the first two
years, “for all youth who can profit from such education”
and to “eliminate racial and religious discrimination.”
President’s Commission, 1947.
5
Taylor, 2008; Rose, 2009.
6
The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. (June 22,
1944). Also known as the GI Bill, this legislation, signed
by President Roosevelt, provided further educational
opportunities for veterans.
7
President’s Commission, 1947.
13
U.S. Department of Education, 2015.
14
U.S. Department of Education, 2014f.
15
U.S. Department of Education, 2009; Sunstein,
Simpler, 2013, 122-123.
16
World Economic Forum, 2014.
17
Piketty and Saez, 2012; Saez and Zucman, 2014. See
also: Piketty and Saez, 2003.
18
Bailey and Dynarski, 2011; Isaacs, Sawhill, and Haskins,
2008.
19
Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014a.
21
Ladson-Billings, 2006; Orfield, 2014; Reardon, 2011;
Reskin, 2012.
22
U.S. Department of Education, 2013a; Mortenson,
2010.
23
U.S. Department of Education, 2013b.
24
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013.
25
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education, 2014; U.S. Department of
Education, 2003.
26
President’s Commission, 1947.
27
Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012; Bassett, 2014.
28
Soares, 2013.
29
Toldson and Lewis, 2012; The Sentencing Project,
2013.
30
Organization for Economic
Development (OECD), 2014.
31
32
In October, 2013, the OECD Secretary General released
the findings of the International Survey of Adult Skills, a
product of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) in Brussels. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013.
33
9
34
U.S. Department of Education, 2014c.
10
U.S. Department of Education, 2013.
11
SAFRA is part of the Affordable Care Act, signed into
law by President Obama on March 30, 2010.
12
Pell Grant funding may change annually as a result of
federal legislation. The maximum Pell Grant per eligible
and
Obama, 2010.
8
U.S. Census Bureau, 2014.
Cooperation
Allan, Grossman, Rivkin, and Vaduganathan, 2014.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 8.
35
Baum and Ma, 2012.
36
CNN Wire Staff, 2012.
37
National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators, 2014.
35
36
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
38
U.S. Department of Education, 2014d; New America
Foundation, 2014.
39
63
Gallup, August 2014. See also Jones, 2014.
64
Goldrick-Rab and Kelly, 2014.
U.S. Department of Education, 2014e.
40
REFERENCES
McDonald and Brady, 2014.
41
Baylor and Bergeron, 2014.
42
Dynarski and Clayton, 2006.
43
Letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan,
2014.
44
Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2012;
Elliott, Song, and Nam, 2013.
45
Levine, 2013.
46
Hiltonsmith and Draut, 2014.
47
U.S. Department of Education, 2014a; U.S. Department
of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, 2013c.
48
Chingos, 2013; U.S. Senate, 2013.
49
American Council on Education, 2012, 4.
50
51
Oliff, Palacios, Johnson, and Leachman, 2013.
Baylor and Bergeron, 2014, 2-4.
52
U.S. Department of Education, 2014b. See also U.S.
Department of Education, 2009.
53
American Council on Education, 2012, 4.
54
Baylor and Bergeron, 2014, 2-4.
55
State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2012;
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2012. “[F]rom 2000 to
2010, public funding per pupil, defined as state and local
support for public higher education per pupil (excluding
loans), fell by 21 percent.” Chakrabarti, Mabutas, and
Zafar, 2012.
56
American Association
Universities, 2013.
57
of
State
Colleges
and
Cuomo and Megna, 2014.
58
California Secretary of State, 2012.
59
“Federal Student Aid,” 2014; Board of Governors,
2014, Nasiripour, 2014.
60
Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, 2009; Schneider,
Martinez, and Owens, 2006; Schneider, Kirst, and Hess,
2003; Carnevale, 1999; Lazerson, 2010; Schneider and
Stevenson, 1999.
61
Jefferson, 1787.
62
Gallup found that college graduates burdened with
student debt are less healthy, happy, motivated, and
financially secure than their peers over time. Dugan and
Kafka, 2014. See also Cooke, Barkham, Audin, Bradley,
and Davy, 2004.
Adams, J. “Thoughts on Government” in idem., The
Revolutionary Writings of John Adams, selected and
with a foreword by C. Bradley Thompson (Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund, 2000 [1776]) . http://oll.
libertyfund.org/titles/592.
Allan, S., A. Grossman, J. Rivkin, and N. Vaduganathan,
eds. Lasting Impact: A Business Leader’s Playbook for
Supporting America’s Schools. Cambridge, Mass.: Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Boston Consulting Group, and the Harvard Business School, 2014.
Retrieved from: http://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/research/pk12-education/publications.html.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Creating a New Compact Between States and Public
Higher Education: A Report by the AASCU Task Force
on Making Public Higher Education a State Priority.
Washington, D.C.: AASCU, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.aascu.org/policy/P5/newcompact/fullreport.pdf.
American Council on Education. Putting College Costs into
Context. Washington, D.C.: ACE, April 5, 2012, 4.
Retrieved from: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/
Documents/Putting-College-Costs-Into-Context.pdf.
Annie E. Casey Foundation, The. Double Jeopardy: How
Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence
High School Graduation. D.J. Hernandez. Baltimore,
Md.: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECFDoubleJeopardy-2012-Full.pdf.
Bailey, M.J., and S.M. Dynarski. “Inequality in Postsecondary Attainment,” in G. Duncan and R. Murnane, eds., Whither Opportunity: Rising Inequality,
Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 2011, 117-132.
Bassett, M.D. Policy Brief Summer 2014: Considering TwoGeneration Strategies in the States. Chevy Chase, Md.:
Working Poor Families Project, 2014.. Retrieved from
http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/09/WPFP-Summer-2014-Brief.pdf.
Baum, S. and J. Ma, Trends in College Pricing: 2012. New
York: The College Board, 2012). Retrieved from:
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/
notes-sources.
Baylor, E. and D. Bergeron. Public College Quality Compact for Students and Taxpayers: A Proposal to Reverse
Declining State Investment in Higher Education and
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
Improve Quality and Affordability. Washington,
D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2014. Retrieved
from: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/01/HigherEd-brief1.pdf.
Cooke, R., M. Barkham, K. Audin, M. Bradley, and J.
Davy. “Student Debt and its Relation to Student
Mental Health.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 28 (1) (2004), 53-66.
Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System. (Graphic
illustration, delinquency rates). Charge-off and Delinquency Rates on Loans and Leases at Commercial
Banks. May 20, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.
federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/delallsa.htm.
Corporation for Enterprise Development. “Policy Brief:
College Saving Incentives. Assets and Opportunity
Scorecard.” 2012. Retrieved from: http://cfed.org/
assets/scorecard/2013/pb_CollegeSavingsIncentives_2013.pdf.
Bowen, W., M. Chingos, and M. McPherson, Crossing the
Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public
Universities. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 2009.
Cuomo, A. and R.L. Megna. Building on Success: 2014–15
New York State Executive Budget. Albany, N.Y.: New
York State Division of the Budget, January 21, 2014.
Retrieved from: http://publications.budget.ny.gov/
eBudget1415/fy1415littlebook/HigherEducation.pdf.
California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. Statement
of Vote—November 6, 2012 General Election. Sacramento, Calif.: Secretary of State, 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-general.
Carnevale, A.P. Education=Success: Empowering Hispanic Youth and Adults. 1999.
Century Foundation, The. Bridging the Higher Education Divide: Strengthening Community Colleges
and Restoring the American Dream. Baum, S., C.
Kurose, S. Goldrick-Rab, P. Kinsley, T. Melguizo,
and H. Kosiewicz. New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2013.
Chakrabarti, R., M. Mabutas, and B. Zafar. Soaring
Tuitions: Are Public Funding Cuts to Blame? New
York Federal Reserve Bank Report. September,
2012. Retrieved from: http://libertystreeteconomics.
newyorkfed.org/2012/09/soaring-tuitions-are-public-funding-cuts-to-blame.html#.VAZhO2RdWc0.
Chingos, M.M. Need for Better Data Trumps Need for
College Ratings. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, The Brown Center Chalkboard, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.brookings.edu/research/
papers/2013/11/06-better-data-for-college-ratingschingos.
CNN Wire Staff. CNN Fact Check: Obama’s Student
Aid Boast on the Mark. October 17, 2012. Retrieved
from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/factcheck-student-aid.
College Board. Trends in Student Aid. New York: College
Board, 2013. Retrieved from: http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/student-aid-2013-fullreport.pdf.
Congressional Budget Office. The Federal Pell Grant
Program: Recent Growth and Policy Options. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States, 2013.
Retrieved from: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/
files/44448_PellGrants_9-5-13.pdf.
Dugan, A. and S. Kafka. “Student Debt Linked to Worse
Health and Less Wealth,” Gallup Wellbeing (August
7, 2014) Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/
poll/174317/student-debt-linked-worse-health-lesswealth.aspx.
Dynarski, S.M., and J.S. Clayton. The Cost of Complexity in
Federal Student Aid: Lessons from Optimal Tax Theory
and Behavioral Economics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government and
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006. Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/
list/hiedfuture/reports/dynarski-scott-calyton.pdf.
Elliott, W., H. Song, and I. Nam. “Relationships Between
College Savings and Enrollment, Graduation, and
Student Loan Debt.” St. Louis, Mo.: Center for Social
Development, Washington University in St. Louis,
March, 2013. Retrieved from: http://csd.wustl.edu/
Publications/Documents/RB13-09.pdf.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Liberty Street Economics Blog Examines Student Loans and Soaring Tuition
Costs,” Research Update 3 (2012), 1-2. Retrieved from:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/research_
update/ru09_12.pdf.
“Federal Student Aid: Office of the U.S. Department of
Education.” Federal Student Aid Portfolio Summary
(Data file) (2014). Retrieved from https://studentaid.
ed.gov/about/data-center/student/portfolio.
Gallup Organization, The. U.S. Economic Confidence Index (Weekly). (Graph illustration). August 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/125735/
economic-confidence-index.aspx.
Goldrick-Rab, S. and A.P. Kelly, eds. Reinventing Financial
Aid: Charting a New Course to College Affordability.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education Press, 2014.
Hiltonsmith, R., and T. Draut. The Great Cost Shift Continues: State Higher Education Funding after the
37
38
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Recession. March 6, 2014. Retrieved from: http://
www.demos.org/publication/great-cost-shift-continues-state-higher-education-funding-after-recession.
Isaacs, J.B., I. Sawhill, and R. Haskins. “Getting Ahead
or Losing Ground: Economic Mobility in America.”
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008.
Jefferson, T. State of the Union Address, 1806. Retrieved
from: http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-theunion/18.html.
______. “Letter to James Madison,” December 20, 1787.
Retrieved from: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/
thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl66.
php.
______. “Letter to John Adams,” November 25, 1816, in
Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters, 2
vols. (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, 1959), 2: 496-7.
Jones, J. “Partisanship Points to Tough Midterm Environment for Dems,” Gallup Politics (July 31,
2014). Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/
poll/174260/partisanship-points-tough-midtermenvironment-dems.aspx
Ladson-Billings, G. “From the Achievement Gap to the
Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S.
Schools.” Educational Researcher 35 (7) (2006), 3-12.
Lazerson, M. Higher Education and the American Dream:
Success and its Discontents. Budapest and New York:
Central European University Press, 2010.
Letter to U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, and
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew. “12 Senators Urging Obama Administration to Raise Awareness of Higher Education Tax Credits.” Personal
communication, August 17, 2014.
Levine, P.B. Simplifying Estimates of College Costs.
Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.
hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/
THP_Mini_DiscPaper_Final.pdf.
McDonald, P. and P. Brady. The Plural of Anecdote is
Data (Except for Student Debt). Washington, D.C.:
Hamilton Place Strategies, 2014. Retrieved from:
http://www.hamiltonplacestrategies.com/news/
media-coverage-student-debt.
Mortenson, T. “Bachelor’s Degree Attainment by Age
24 by Family Income Quartiles, 1970–2009,” Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 21 (November,
2010). Retrieved from http://www.postsecondary.
org/last12/221_1110pg1_16.pdf.
Nasiripour, S. “Half of Federal Student Loan Borrowers Not Paying on Time.” Huffington Post, August
11, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.huffington
post.com/2014/08/11/student-loans-delinquent_n_
5670154.html?page_version=legacy&view=print&
comm_ref=false.
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. National Student Aid Profile: Overview
of 2014 Federal programs. Washington, D.C.: NASFAA, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.google.
com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&
cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2F
www.nasfaa.org%2Fadvocacy%2Fprofile%2F2014_
National_Profile.aspx&ei=oUYsVLm3DbHLsAT
7rYLABg&usg=AFQjCNEv9L1h2qUqJLD5DSN
FbpdkNGa4RQ&sig2=8j-28vu29SKL_tPhLkOjg&bvm=bv.76477589,d.cWc.
National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics (2013). Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.
com/no8w9mk.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Measuring Up 2008: The National Report Card on
Higher Education (San Jose, Calif.: NCPPHE, 2008).
Retrieved from: http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/NCPPHEMUNationalRpt.pdf.
New America Foundation. Federal Education Budget Project: Background and Analysis—Federal Pell Grant Program. Washington, D.C.: New America Foundation,
2014. Retrieved from: http://febp.newamerica.net/
background-analysis/federal-pell-grant-program.
Obama, B. “Speech at Gregory Gym.” Lecture conducted
from University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas,
August 9, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/09/president-obama-highereducation-austin-we-are-not-playing-second-place.
Oliff, P., V. Palacios, I. Johnson, and M. Leachman.
Recent Deep State Higher Education Cuts May
Harm Students and the Economy for Years to Come.
Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.cbpp.org/
cms/?fa=view&id=3927.
Orfield, G. “Tenth Annual Brown Lecture in Education
Research: A New Civil Rights Agenda for American
Education.” Educational Researcher, 43 (6), (August,
2014), 273-292.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. Brussels: OECD, 2014. Retrieved from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
______. Survey of Adult Skills. Brussels: OECD, 2013.
Pew Charitable Trusts. Pursuing the American Dream:
Economic Mobility Across Generations. July, 2012.
Piketty, T. Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 2014.
______. “Top Incomes and the Great Recession: Recent
Evolutions and Policy Implications.” (Oct. 26, 2012,
draft) 13th Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary
Fund, November 8–9, 2014.
______ and E. Saez. “Income Inequality in the United
States, 1913–1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Tech. 1st ed. 118 (2003). Retrieved from: http://eml.
berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf.
President’s Commission on Higher Education. Higher
Education for American Democracy. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1947.
Reardon, S.F. “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap
Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and
Possible Explanations.” Whither Opportunity, 2011,
91-116.
Reskin, B. “The Race Discrimination System.” Annual
Review of Sociology 38 (2012): 17-35.
Rose, N.E. Put to Work: The WPA and Public Employment in the Great Depression, 2nd ed. New York:
Monthly Review Press, 2009.
Saez, E., and G. Zucman. “The Distribution of U.S.
Wealth, Capital Income and Returns Since 1913.”
March, 2014. Retrieved from: http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf.
Schneider, B., M. Kirst, and F.M. Hess. “Strategies for Success: High School and Beyond.” Brookings Papers on
Education Policy (2003), 55-93.
______ and D. Stevenson. The Ambitious Generation:
America’s Teenagers Motivated, but Directionless.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999.
Sentencing Project, The. Report of The Sentencing Project to
the United Nations Human Rights Committee Regarding Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal
Justice System. 2013. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_ICCPR%20
Race%20and%20Justice%20Shadow%20Report.pdf
Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, The. June 22, 1944.
Copy at: http://research.archives.gov/description/
299854. Also known as the GI Bill, this legislation
signed by President Roosevelt provided further educational opportunities for veterans.
KEEPING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE IS ESSENTIAL
Soares, L. Post-traditional Learners and the Transformation of Postsecondary Education: A Manifesto for College Leaders. Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.
acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Post-traditional-Learners.pdf.
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). State
Higher Education Finance, 2012 (Boulder, Colo.:
SHEEO, 2012).
Sunstein, C. Simpler. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013.
Taylor, N. American-Made: The Enduring Legacy of the
WPA, When FDR Put the Nation to Work. New
York: Bantam Books, 2008.
Toldson, I.A. and C.W. Lewis. Challenge the Status Quo:
Academic Success among School-age African American Males. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Black
Caucus Foundation, Inc., 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.cbcfinc.org/oUploadedFiles/CTSQ.pdf.
Truman, H.S. “Statement by the President Making Public a Report of the Commission Higher Education,”
December 15, 1947. Retrieved from http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1852.
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau,
2012 National Population Projections: Summary
Tables, Table 1. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2012/
summarytables.html.
______. American FactFinder Monthly Population Estimates for the United States: April 1, 2010 to December 1, 2014, 2013 Population Estimates. Retrieved
from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
______. “Population Age 24 and Over by Educational
Attainment: 1940–2013.” CPS Historical Time Series
Tables, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.census.
gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical.
U.S. Department of Education. 2008–2009 Federal Pell
Grant Program End-of-Year Report. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Postsecondary Education, 2009.
Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/
resources/data/pell-2008-09/pell-eoy-08-09.pdf.
______. The Database of Postsecondary Institutions
and Programs (data file). Washington, D.C.:
June, 2014a. Retrieved from: http://ope.ed.gov/
accreditation/GetDownLoadFile.aspx, and http://
www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html.
______. Federal Pell Grant Program Payment Schedule
for Determining Full-time Scheduled Awards for
39
40
THE NEA 2015 ALMANAC OF HIGHER EDUCATION
the 2014–2015 Award Year. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, 2014b. Retrieved from:
https://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/2014
2015PellGrantPaymentandDisbursementSchedules.
pdf.
Washington, D.C.: NCES, 2014a. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf.
______.  Federal Student Aid, 2015. Retrieved from: https://
studentaid.ed.gov/types/grants-scholarships/pell.
______. “NCES Fast Facts: Postsecondary Enrollment
Rates (2013)” in Digest of Education Statistics,
2012 (Washington, D.C.: NCES, 2014b), chapter 3.
Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.
asp?id=98.
______. “Federal Student Loan Portfolio,” 2014c. Retrieved
from: https://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/
stu-dent/portfolio.
______. Racial and Ethnic Historical Trends. Washington, D.C.: NCES, 2013b. Retrieved from http://nces.
ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.50.asp.
______. Free Application for Federal Student Aid. 2014f.
Retrieved from: https://fafsa.ed.gov.
______. “Total Fall Enrollment in All Postsecondary Institutions Participating in Title IV programs and
Annual Percentage Change in Enrollment, by Degree-Granting Status and Control of Institutions:
1995 through 2012” in Digest of Education Statistics.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
2013c, Table 303.20. Retrieved from: http://nces.
ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.20.asp.
______. “Obama Administration Announces Streamlined College Aid Application.” June 24, 2009.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/06/06242009.html.
______. Obama Administration Takes Action to Protect
Americans from Predatory, Poor-Performing Career
Colleges. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2014e. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/obama-administration-takes-actionprotect-americans-predatory-poor-performing-ca.
______. Student Financial Assistance: Fiscal Year 2015
Budget Request. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2014d. Retrieved from: http://
www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/
justifications/q-sfa.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992
National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National
Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, 2003. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp#2.
______. The Condition of Education 2013. Washington,
D.C.: NCES, 2013a. Retrieved from http://nces.
ed.gov/pubs2013/2013037.pdf
______. Public High School Four-Year On-time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Years
2010–11 and 2011–12: First Look, NCES 2014-391.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical
and Adult Education. FY 2015 Budget Request. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2014.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/budget15/justifications/o-ctae.pdf.
U.S. Senate. Full Committee Hearing—Accreditation as
Quality Assurance: Meeting the Needs of 21st Century
Learning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate, December
12, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.help.senate.gov/
hearings/hearing/?id=ac694134-5056-a032-52005c2409df2cb5.
Willis, O. “Pope Francis Rebukes ‘Marxist’ Attack From
Rush Limbaugh and Conservative Media.” MediaMatters (Interview with La Stampa). December
15, 2013. Retrieved from: http://mediamatters.org/
blog/2013/12/15/pope-francis-rebukes-marxistattack-from-rush-l/197273.
World Economic Forum, Outlook on the Global Agenda.
“Top 10 Trends of 2014: 2. Widening Income Disparities,” 2014. Retrieved from: http://reports.
weforum.org/outlook-14/top-ten-trends-categorypage/2-widening-income-disparities.