# Presentation: 521162

## Presentation Prepared for: 
NASSGAP Fall Conference 2005
By

The Advisory Committee on 
Student Financial Assistance

Tuesday, October 11, 2005
San Francisco, CA

**NASSGAP Fall Conference 2005**
- By
**The Advisory Committee on **
**Student Financial Assistance**
- Tuesday, October 11, 2005
- San Francisco, CA

## About the Advisory Committee

The Condition of Access and Persistence 
	for Low- and Moderate-Income Students 

Update on ACSFA HEA Recommendations

Collaborating with NASSGAP

- The Condition of Access and Persistence
- 	for Low- and Moderate-Income Students* *
- Update on ACSFA HEA Recommendations
- Collaborating with NASSGAP

**Presentation Overview**

## Advisory Committee Overview

- Independent committee created by Congress in 1986
**Purpose:** To advise Congress and the Secretary of Education on higher education and financial aid policy
**Primary Goal:**  To make recommendations that increase access and persistence for low- and moderate-income students

## The Original Intent of HEA

**“****A high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any **
**of the fifty states and not be turned away because his family is poor.”**
-                -President Lyndon B. Johnson, at the HEA signing,
- November 8, 1965

**Notes:**
As we approach the 40th Anniversary of the signing of the Higher Education Act, and its eighth reauthorization, it is important to remember the original intent of the HEA and its promise to students. 

The HEA of 1965 was a part of a watershed event--a series of laws established by Congress in the mid-1960s to transform higher education in the U.S. from a largely private enterprise for the elite into a public commitment to make a higher education accessible to anyone.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson delivered an education message stating the need for more higher education opportunities for lower and middle income students, as well as the need to use college and university resources to help solve national problems like poverty.

HEA 1965 focused on ensuring that low-income students had access to colleges and universities by providing them with the tools necessary to prepare for and finance a college education.  The intent of HEA 1965 was to “level the playing field” by giving low-income students the same educational opportunities as their middle and upper income peers. 

Tens of millions of low-income students have benefited from HEA, especially the grant aid (LEAP, SEOG, Pell) and academic support programs (TRIO, GEAR UP) it provides. 

But, as we are all aware of, and as the information I will review next demonstrates, financial barriers still prevent significant numbers of low- and moderate-income students from accessing and persisting in higher education. 

## Enrollment Rate of High School Graduates, by Income, 1975-2003:

- Courtesy: Michael McPherson (2005)

**Enrollment Rate of High School Graduates, ****by Income, 1975-2003:**

## Percentage of 1992 High School Graduates Attending College in 1994, by Achievement Test and Socioeconomic Status Quartile: 

| Achievement Quartile | SES Quartile |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | Lowest | Highest |
| Highest | 78% | 97% |
| Lowest | 36% | 77% |

- Source: Access Denied, p. 13

## Postsecondary Enrollment Rates of 1992 High School Graduates, by Family Income and Math Test Scores, at Four-year Public Colleges

| 
TEST SCORES | Lowest 
Income Level  | Highest 
Income Level |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Lowest Scores | 15% | 27% |
| Middle Scores | 33% | 59% |
| Top Scores | 68% | 84% |

- Source: *Education Pays 2004*, pg. 30
- Courtesy: Michael McPherson (2005)

## Distribution of First-time, Full-time Freshmen, by Income and Institutional Selectivity, Fall 1999:

- Source: McPherson and Schapiro, Handbook Essay
- Courtesy: Michael McPherson (2005)

| Selectivity of Institution | Lowest-income (under $20,000) | Highest-income
(above $200,000) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2-yr public | 39% | 10% |
| 2-yr private | 3.7% | 3.5% |
| Low-selective 4-yr | 41.9% | 35.4% |
| Medium-selective 4-yr | 9.7% | 25.6% |
| High-selective 4-yr | 5.8% | 25.5% |

## Percentage of Students who Earned a BA by Age 24:

- Source: *Postsecondary Education Opportunity*

| Family Income | 1975 | 2003 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| <$35,901 | 7.1% | 8.6% |
| >$95,040 | 38% | 95% |

**Percentage of Students ****who Earned a BA by Age 24:**

**Notes:**
While higher-income peers are making gains in degree attainment, low-income students’ rate has remained stagnant

## BA Completion Rates of Students Who Entered Four-year Institutions in 1995, with the Goal of Earning a BA: 

**BA Completion Rates of Students Who Entered Four-year Institutions in 1995, with the Goal of Earning a BA:**** **

| Family Income | Completion Rate |
| --- | --- |
| <$25,000 | 54% |
| $25,000-$44,999 | 59% |
| $45,000-$69,999 | 68% |
| $70,000+ | 77% |

- Source: *Education Pays 2004, *pg 35 (figure 24)
- Courtesy:* *Michael McPherson (2005)

## Percentage of Students who Earn a BA by Age 26, in 2004:

**Percentage of Students who ****Earn a BA by Age 26, in 2004:**

-    **7%** of all **low**-income students
-    **60%** of all **upper**-income students

- Source: Kevin Carey, The Education Trust (2004)

## National Unemployment Rates for Adults Over 25, in 2003:

**National Unemployment Rates ****for Adults Over 25, in 2003:**

**   ****3.3%** for those with a **Bachelor’s Degree**
-    **5.5%** for those with a **High School Diploma**

- Source: *Postsecondary Education Opportunity*

## Large differences persist in enrollment rates by income

Shift in priorities to merit aid and affordability for the middle class

High unmet need for low-income students has a negative impact on their enrollment patterns

**Key Findings from *****Access Denied***** (2001)**

- Large differences persist in enrollment rates by income
- Shift in priorities to merit aid and affordability for the middle class
- High unmet need for low-income students has a negative impact on their enrollment patterns

## The Focus of Empty Promises (2002)

**The Focus of *****Empty Promises *****(2002)**

- Focused only on those low-income students who were **college-qualified, high school graduates **to isolate the effects of financial aid
- Refined the discussion of financial barriers to focus on **net price **and **work/loan burden**
- Calculated **aggregate, national losses **over the upcoming decade
- Measured the impact of financial barriers across the **full access pipeline** – through degree completion

## Key Findings from Empty Promises

**Key Findings from *****Empty Promises***

## Key Findings from Empty Promises

**Key Findings from *****Empty Promises***

## Key Findings from Empty Promises

**Key Findings from *****Empty Promises***

## Key Findings from Empty Promises: The Access and Persistence Crisis

- Of **college-qualified**, low- and moderate-income
- 	high school graduates, over the next decade:
_**4.4 million students**_ will not enroll in a
- 	four-year college within two years of graduation
_**2 million students**_ will not attend any college

## Key Findings from Empty Promises

## Losses Attributable to Financial Barriers

## THE CURRENT CONDITION OF ACCESS:Student Work/Loan Burden 

## Advisory Committee HEA Reauthorization Recommendations

- Simplification:
*The Student Aid Gauntlet* report (2005)
- Partnership proposal (2003)

## HEA REAUTHORIZATION UPDATESimplification

***The Student Aid Gauntlet *****Report**
- One-year study from Congress
- Ten recommendations to simplify the application process and specific aspects of need analysis
**Examples of Key Recommendations:**
- Create a comprehensive system of early financial aid information
- Allow students to receive early estimates of financial aid awards
- Simplify and streamline FAFSA on the Web
- Phase-out the long paper FAFSA

## ACSFA Recommendations in HEA Bills

## A New National Partnership for Access and Persistence

**Recommendation:** Create an access and persistence partnership between the federal government, states, colleges, and private philanthropic groups.
**Purpose: **
-   Improve integration and coordination among existing programs.
-   Implement a comprehensive strategy effectively aimed at all of the factors that determine access and persistence.
**Objective: **Provide low-income students with—
-   Adequate grant aid to reduce work-loan burden
-   Early assurances of financial access to four-year institutions
-   Incentives to increase participation in early intervention programs

## Originally included in the ACCESS Act (S. 1029)

Currently included in the Senate HEA bill (S. 1614) as Grants for Access and Persistence (GAP):

Replaces Special LEAP with GAP

Under GAP, the Federal government would reward States with higher levels of federal matching dollars than under Special LEAP for partnering with institutions, philanthropic groups, and private entities

- Currently included in the Senate HEA bill (S. 1614) as Grants for Access and Persistence (GAP):
- Replaces Special LEAP with GAP
- Under GAP, the Federal government would reward States with higher levels of federal matching dollars than under Special LEAP for partnering with institutions, philanthropic groups, and private entities

**Partnership Proposal in HEA Legislation**

## Two New Charges for the Advisory Committee

**Title IV Deregulation Initiative**
**Innovative Pathways Study**

## Initiative sponsored by Sen. Alexander (R-TN) and 
     higher education community

Senate HEA bill (S.1614) charges ACSFA to:
Convene two expert panels to review and analyze 
   Title IV regulations to determine whether each regulation is:
Duplicative 
No longer necessary
Inconsistent with other Federal requirements
Overly burdensome

-      higher education community
- Senate HEA bill (S.1614) charges ACSFA to:
- Convene two expert panels to review and analyze
-    Title IV regulations to determine whether each regulation is:
- Duplicative
- No longer necessary
- Inconsistent with other Federal requirements
- Overly burdensome

**Title IV Deregulation Study **

## Innovative Pathways to Degree Attainment Study

- Requires ACSFA to examine innovative ways to:
- Increase the bachelor degree attainment rates of low-income students
- Reduce the financial barriers to college for low-income students
- Study scope includes:
- Dual enrollment programs, such as early college high schools
- Community college programs

## Opportunities to Collaborate with NASSGAP in the Future

- Monitoring the implementation of the Federal-State Access and Persistence Partnership
- Monitoring the implementation of simplification recommendations
- Reviewing innovative programs in states

## Questions?

**Notes:**
Questions?

## Contact Information

**Nicole A. Barry**
**Deputy Director**
- _[nicole.barry@ed.gov](mailto:nicole.barry@ed.gov)_
**Erin B. Renner**
**Assistant Director**
- _[erin.renner@ed.gov](mailto:erin.renner@ed.gov)_
**(202) 219-2099**