[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PAYING FOR COLLEGE: INNOVATIVE
PRIVATE-SECTOR PROPOSALS TO COMPLEMENT
RECORD FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN STUDENT AID
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 23, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-986 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California,
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Sam Johnson, Texas Major R. Owens, New York
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Judy Biggert, Illinois Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Ric Keller, Florida John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada David Wu, Oregon
John Kline, Minnesota Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Susan A. Davis, California
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Cathy McMorris, Washington Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Kenny Marchant, Texas Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Price, Georgia Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Tim Ryan, Ohio
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana [Vacancy]
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
[Vacancy]
Vic Klatt, Staff Director
Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director, General Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
RIC KELLER, Florida, Chairman
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Vice Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Sam Johnson, Texas John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio David Wu, Oregon
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Cathy McMorris, Washington Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Price, Georgia Tim Ryan, Ohio
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana Virginia
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Susan A. Davis, California
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New Major R. Owens, New York
York George Miller, California, ex
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, ex officio
officio [Vacancy]
[Vacancy]
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 23, 2006..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Keller, Hon. Ric, Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce.. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Davis, Tom, owner, Davis Brothers Construction............... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Jones, Allison G., assistant vice chancellor, California
State University System.................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Supplemental presentation, ``Early Assessment Program''.. 44
Merisotis, Jamie P., president, Institute for Higher
Education Policy........................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Salandy, Rassan, director of university recruitment and
public relations, the Posse Foundation..................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Additional Submissions:
Baum, Sandy, the College Board............................... 40
PAYING FOR COLLEGE: INNOVATIVE
PRIVATE-SECTOR PROPOSALS TO
COMPLEMENT RECORD FEDERAL
INVESTMENT IN STUDENT AID
----------
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn, Hon. Ric Keller [chairman of the subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Keller, McKeon, Petri, Johnson,
Ehlers, Tiberi, Osborne, Inglis, Price, Fortuno, Foxx, Drake,
Kuhl, Kildee, Payne, Tierney, Kind, Wu, Holt, McCollum, Ryan,
and Bishop.
Staff Present: James Bergeron, Counselor to the Chairman;
Jessica Gross, Press Assistant; Richard Hoar, Professional
Staff Member; Lucy House, Legislative Assistant; Chad Miller,
Coalitions Director for Education Policy; Amy Raaf,
Professional Staff Member; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar,
Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Denise Forte, Minority
Legislative Associate/Education; Lauren Gibbs, Minority
Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority
Legislative Assistant/Education; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority
Staff Director/General Counsel.
Chairman Keller. Good morning.
A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness will come to order.
We are meeting today to hear testimony on Paying For
College: Innovative Private-Sector Proposals to Complement
Record Federal Investment in Student Aid.
Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited
to the chairman and ranking minority member of the
subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have statements, they
may be included in the hearing record.
With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record
to remain open 14 days to allow member statements and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so
ordered.
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today. We
are here to learn about how innovative private sector proposals
can help increase college access and complement the record
Federal investment in student aid.
A college degree is the passport out of poverty for
millions of American students each year. Without a college
education, many workers today are shut out of quality, high-
paying jobs. I believe our top priority should be opening the
doors of higher education to low- and middle-income Americans.
That is why I am proud of the record Federal investment and
student financial aid in recent years. Funding for Pell Grants,
the foundation of Federal student aid, has increased 71 percent
since 2000, up from $7.6 billion to $13 billion today. The
maximum grant is up from $3,300 in 2000 to $4,050 today. We
have paid down the Pell Grant shortfall and secured the program
for years to come. With the passage of the College Access and
Opportunity Act earlier this year, we further improved the Pell
Grant program, the Perkins Loan program and increased college
access for millions of American students.
To my left, you can see a chart entitled, Strong Support
for Pell Grant. That shows you where we are today compared to
2000.
You will see on the far left a bar showing that we have
increased the overall Pell Grant funding by 71 percent, and
that doesn't even include the additional $4.3 billion that we
have paid to get rid of the Pell Grant shortfall.
The middle chart reflects the maximum Pell Grant award from
$3,300 up to 4,050. It doesn't include the extra$1,000 for the
Pell Grant Plus Initiative, which is in this bill for the high-
achieving low-income students; and, very excitingly, also, it
doesn't include something that we passed currently called
Academic Competitiveness Grant, which will be available to
students this fall. High-achieving low-income students who take
rigorous classes in math and science will be eligible to
receive an extra $750 their first year if they are Pell Grant
eligible, as well as an extra $1,300 their second year if they
are Pell Grant eligible. Now this if they decide to major in
math and science and they can maintain a 3.0 GPA, they will
receive an additional $4,000 their junior year and an
additional $4,000 their senior year, above and beyond the
original Pell Grant.
The final graph is very telling, and that is the graph
showing the number of Pell Grant recipients that have gone up
from 36 percent since 2000, from 3.9 million to 5.3 million.
And some folks say, why can't we just raise Pell Grant more
above the $4,050? I am one of those folks. Frankly, I would
like to see it much higher. That is the biggest number that is
keeping us down, the dramatic increase of the number of
students going to college. We will have an increase every year
until 2008, which will be the record in terms of high school
graduates. Then it will start to go down a bit, and that will
free us up to spend a lot more money, which most of us believe
is a wise investment.
But the Federal Government, as much as we are doing and can
do, can only do so much; and I know this firsthand. My mother
had a family friendly employer who cut a check that allowed me
to go to college, and I wouldn't have been able to go if it
wasn't for his generous assistance as well as Pell Grant and
students loans. That is why I am happy to be here today to
learn about ways the private sector can help increase college
access for our low- and middle-income students.
One proposal we will discuss is my Family Friendly
Employers Act, a bill to reward family friendly employers like
my mother's who help send their employees' children to school.
My bill allows employers to provide up to $2,500 in tax-free
reimbursements for tuition, books and fees for their employees'
children's education. Employees already enjoy a $5,250 benefit
to help provide for their employees' non-job-related education.
My bill would simply expand the first $2,500 of that benefit to
apply to the employees' children.
The cost of this bill would be low. Employers will be able
to provide the first $2,500 benefit to either their employee or
his or her children but not both. Also, the benefit applies to
each employee's children in sum, so that an employee would
receive the same benefit no matter the number of children.
The Family Friendly Employers Act will encourage more
generous businesses to invest in their companies, their
communities and in our children's education. That is one of the
reasons we have pretty broad bipartisan support for that bill,
including the co-sponsorship of the ranking member of Ways and
Means, Charlie Rangel, and support from groups as diverse as
AFL-CIO and the American Council on Education.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses today to talk about
this bill and other important private-sector proposals to
complement the Federal investment in student aid; and I want to
thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today. I look
forward to your testimony.
With that, I yield to Mr. Kildee for any opening statement
he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ric Keller, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today. We're here to
learn about how innovative private sector proposals can help increase
college access and complement the record federal investment in student
aid.
A college degree is the passport out of poverty for millions of
American students each year. Without a college education, many workers
today are shut out of quality, high-paying jobs. I believe our top
priority should be opening the doors of higher education to low- and
middle-income Americans.
That's why I'm proud of the record federal investment in student
financial aid in recent years. Funding for Pell Grants, the foundation
of federal student aid, has increased 71 percent since 2000, up from
$7.6 billion to $13 billion today. The maximum grant is up from $3,300
in 2000 to $4,050 today. We've paid down the Pell Grant shortfall and
secured the program for years to come. With the passage of the College
Access and Opportunity Act earlier this year, we've further improved
the Pell Grant program, the Perkins Loan program and increased college
access for millions of American students.
But the federal government can only do so much. I know this
firsthand. My mother had a family friendly employer who cut a check to
allow me to go to college.
That's why I am happy to be here today to learn about ways the
private sector can help increase college access for our low- and
middle-income students. One proposal we will discuss is my Family
Friendly Employers Act, a bill to reward family friendly employers like
my mother's who help send their employees' children to school.
My bill allows employers to provide up to $2,500 in tax-free
reimbursements for tuition, books, and fees for their employees'
children's education. Employers already enjoy a $5,250 benefit to help
provide for their employees' non-job-related education. My bill would
simply expand the first $2,500 of that benefit to apply to employees'
children.
The costs of this bill will be low. Employers will be able to
provide the first $2,500 benefit to either their employee or his or her
children, but not both. Also, the benefit applies to each employee's
children in sum, so that an employee would receive the same benefit, no
matter the number of children.
The Family Friendly Employers Act will encourage more generous
businesses to invest in their companies, their communities, and in our
children's education.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses today to talk about this
bill and other private sector proposals to complement the federal
investment in student aid. I want to thank you for appearing before the
Subcommittee today. I look forward to your testimony. With that, I
yield to Mr. Kildee for any opening statement he may have.
______
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Chairman Keller; and congratulations
on your elevation to the chairmanship. This is, I think, your
first hearing since that elevation; and I commend you for that.
I have always enjoyed working with you.
My private-sector investment in student aid is important
and should be encouraged. Federal aid is and should continue to
be considered as the cornerstone of college access and
affordability.
Pell Grants and Federal loans are the single most
consistent resource for students struggling to pay for college
and should be the driving force behind any conversation about
college access and affordability.
Earlier this year, Congress held a $12 billion heist on
curbing student aid programs, while at the same time refusing
to make increased investments in students by reducing interest
rates or increasing the Pell Grant in a meaningful way.
Along with Representative Miller, California, I recently
introduced a bill that would reverse the rate on student aid.
That is H.R. 5150. This bill would cut interest rates in half
for students and parents taking out subsidized loans, the
borrowers most in need. This bill would save the average
borrower already saddled with $17,500 in debt about $5,600 over
the life of their loan.
Pell Grant, arguably the single strongest bridge to college
access for low-income students, has seen no meaningful increase
in the last 5 years. I commend Chairman Keller for putting
internal pressure on his fellow committee leaders to increase
the authorization level for Pell Grant by $200, but the
appropriate level remains disappointingly low. Pell Grants
today are worth $900 less in inflation-adjusted terms than they
were in the 1975-'76 school year when I first came to Congress.
Until we can convince the appropriators to restore the
actual buying power of the Pell Grant to the $5,100 level
promised by our President 6 years ago, we have not done
anything meaningful in helping students and families struggling
to pay for college.
The majority claim to have increased spending on Pell
Grants substantially since 2001. However, when making these
statements, they fail to also disclose that Pell Grants are a
semi-entitlement program, which means that if eligible students
apply for Federal financial aid they automatically get a Pell
Grant. This means that Congress and President Bush do not need
to support a vote and have not voted to increase the overall
spending level for Pell Grant. Instead, Congress votes on
whether or not to increase, cut or freeze the maximum Pell
Grant scholarship for students.
When committee members gave the majority the opportunity to
vote for increasing the maximum Pell Grant scholarship with
guaranteed mandatory funds, the majority opposed the increase
even though it was paid for through offsets coming at no
additional costs to the taxpayers.
Yes, overall, spending on Pell Grant is on the rise, as the
chart indicates over there, but this is because more students
qualify and more students are going to school. In other words,
we have more poor students going to school that need help.
And in Michigan that is certainly the case. Michigan's
economy is--particularly in Flint, the old industrial cities,
more and more poor students depend upon those Pell Grants. The
increases in the end are not necessarily doing more to help
individual students make ends meet but are a minimal reaction
to the rocky economy faced by low-income working families.
Proposals such as tax benefits and employer benefits
overwhelmingly favor students from middle-income families, not
low-income students who otherwise would not attend college if
it weren't for the availability of aid.
These benefits are important and should be encouraged, but
they do not substantially serve to close the college access gap
for low-income students. To this end, we must continue to
consider Federal aid to be the cornerstone of college access.
I would like to thank our witnesses today, all of them, for
joining us to share their wisdom with us; and I yield back the
balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education
and the Workforce
Thank you, Chairman Keller, for convening this hearing, and
congratulations on your recent appointment to this Committee's
leadership.
While private sector investment in student aid is important, and
should be encouraged, Federal aid is, and should continue to be,
considered as the cornerstone of college access and affordability.
Pell Grants and federal loans are the single most consistent
resource for students struggling to pay for college, and should be the
driving force behind any conversation about college access and
affordability.
Earlier this year, Congress held a $12 billion heist on student aid
programs, while at the same time refusing to make increased investments
in students by reducing interest rates or increasing the Pell Grant in
a meaningful way.
Along with Representative Miller, I recently introduced a bill, the
Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act (HR 5150).
This Bill would cut interest rates in half for students and parents
taking out subsidized loans-the borrowers most in need.
This bill would save the average borrower, already saddled with
$17,500 in debt, $5,600 over the life of their loan.
The passage of this bill would offer real relief to students and
families in need.
Pell grants-arguably the single strongest bridge to college access
for low income students-has seen no meaningful increases in the last 5
years.
I commend Chairman Keller for putting internal pressure on his
fellow committee leaders to increase the authorization level for Pell
grants by $200, but the appropriated level remains disappointingly low.
Pell Grants today are worth $900 less, in inflation adjusted terms,
than they were in the 1975-76 school year.
Until we can convince the appropriators to restore the actual
buying power of the Pell Grant-to the $5,100 level promised by our
President six years ago-we have not done anything meaningful in helping
students and families struggling to pay for college.
Republicans claim to have increased spending on Pell grants
substantially since 2001.
However, when making these statements, Republicans fail to also
disclose that Pell grants are a semi-entitlement program-which means
that if eligible students apply for federal financial aid, they
automatically get a Pell grant.
This means that Congress and President Bush do not vote, and have
not voted, to increase the overall funding levels for Pell grants.
Instead, Congress votes on whether or not to increase, cut or
freeze the maximum Pell grant scholarship for individuals.
When Committee Democrats gave Republicans the opportunity to vote
for increasing the maximum Pell grant scholarship-with guaranteed
mandatory funds-Republicans opposed the increase, even though it was
paid for though offsets, coming at no additional cost to taxpayers.
Yes, overall spending on Pell grants is on the rise, but this is
because more students qualify and more students are going to school-in
other words-we have more poor students that need our help!
The increases in the end are not necessarily doing more to help
individual students make ends meet, but a minimal reaction to the rocky
economy faced by low-income working families.
Proposals such as tax benefits and employer benefits overwhelming
favor students from middle-income families, NOT low income students who
otherwise would not attend college if it weren't for the availability
of aid.
These benefits are important and should be encouraged, but they do
not substantially serve to close the college access gap for low-income
students.
For this end, we must continue to consider federal aid to be the
cornerstone of college access.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today for this
discussion; I look forward to hearing your testimony.
______
Chairman Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Kildee.
We do have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today,
and I am eager to hear their testimony. I would like to begin
by introducing all of our witnesses, and then afterwards I will
recognize you individually.
First, we have Mr. Tom Davis, who co-founded Davis Brothers
Construction Company with his brother, Robert Davis, in 1986.
In the 20 years that Davis brothers have been in business, Tom
has managed the construction of projects for many clients in
Colorado, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana.
Mr. Davis also offers a unique benefit to his employees,
one that allows his employees to put away money for their
children's college education. Through this program, Tom has
been able to assist seven students in achieving their college
dream.
Next, we have Mr. Allison Jones. Mr. Jones is the Assistant
Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and Student Academic
Support at California State University. In this capacity, he
coordinates support to CSU's 23 campuses in the areas of K
through 12 academic outreach admission, enrollment, management,
financial aid, educational opportunity programs, student
services, student health, transfer services, disabled student
services and remediation. He has been with CSU since 1985.
In 2000, Mr. Jones was appointed by the California State
Rules Committee to the Scholar Share Investment Board. Scholar
Share was implemented by the California Governor and
legislature to help California families save for college. Mr.
Jones was also selected as a trustee of the College Board in
2005.
Mr. Rassan Salandy is the National Director of University
Recruitment and Public Relations at the Posse Foundation. In
this position, he is responsible for managing press and
developing partnerships with selective universities interested
in recruiting students through the Posse program. Rassan is an
alumnus of Posse and received his bachelor's degree in 1997
from the great University of Vanderbilt, which I also happened
to graduate from.
He has worked as a New York City public schoolteacher under
the New York City Teaching Fellows Program and has been
involved with several other youth leadership development
organizations. He holds a Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy
from the University of Wisconsin and plans to pursue his
doctorate in the same field.
Finally, we have Mr. Jamie Merisotis. He is the founding
President of the Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Established in 1993 in Washington, D.C., the Institute is
regarded as a premiere research and policy organization,
concerned with higher education policy development.
As the Institute's President, Mr. Merisotis has worked
extensively on nearly every aspect of the Institute's work. He
is recognized as a leading authority on college and university
financing, particularly student aid, and has published major
studies and reports on topics ranging from higher education
ranking systems to technology based learning.
Prior to founding the Institute, Mr. Merisotis served as
the Executive Director of the National Commission on
Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education, a
bipartisan commission appointed by the President and the
congressional leadership.
Now, before the panel begins, I would like to remind the
members that we will be asking questions of the witnesses after
testimony; and, in addition, committee rule 2 imposes a 5-
minute limit on all of the questions.
As to the witnesses, each one of you will have 5 minutes to
give your presentation. If your written remarks are longer, we
will submit those in the record in total.
Let me explain briefly the lights, which will be helpful to
you. The green light says you have 5 minutes. Once you have
only 1 minute left, you will see a yellow light that will
advise you that you only have a minute left. And then, finally,
the red light means your time has expired and we would ask you
to wrap it up pretty shortly thereafter so we can make sure all
the members have time to get to your questions.
With that, let me thank all the witnesses for being here;
and we will begin with Mr. Tom Davis.
STATEMENT OF TOM DAVIS, OWNER, DAVIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Tom Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Kildee and other committee members. It is an honor to be here.
To tell you a little bit about myself, my brother and I
started a construction company in Houston 20 years ago, Davis
Brothers Construction. We build dormitories for universities,
high-end apartment projects and condominiums around the
country; and we do an average volume of about $50 million a
year.
I was raised on a ranch in West Texas by two hard-working,
loving parents that sacrificed a lot to put four kids through
college. Out of the four, I am the only one that didn't
graduate. I didn't take full opportunity--didn't take full
advantage of the opportunity I had. I partied too much. But
so--and out of those--but I was raised with a strong belief
that we owe our children an opportunity to go to college. And
we as a family, we as a country, we as a people, we owe that to
these kids that we have out here today.
I am involved with three charities, all of them that have
to do with children. The first is the Star Hope Mission in
Houston, which is one of the largest missions of its kind in
the country. Houston has, right now, over about 10,000 homeless
people; and the average age of that homeless person in Houston
is 9 years old. So there are lots of homeless kids out there
that are starving to death.
The other charity I work with is the Houston Livestock Show
and Rodeo. It is dedicated to education, and each year we give
about a little over $8 million in full scholarships to Texas
youth.
The third charity I am involved with is called Elves and
More, and it is based out of Houston. It is a charity where we
give away bicycles to children that live under the poverty
level. Last year, we gave out roughly 21,000 bicycles; and it
makes a huge difference to these children. It gives them
freedom and allows them to go to school when their parents
can't take them, stuff like that.
But my point I am making is that, by being active in these,
I have seen what an education does for a child; and I have seen
what not having a college education has done. And that is my
point.
Because of this, my brother and I decided to start paying
for our employees' children's college education. We have 37
full-time employees, and now many of their children are
reaching college age. So we pay for those that can't pay. So we
have seven kids right now that are enrolled in college full
time, and we monitor each one. They bring us their grades. If
they are in trouble, we hire tutors for them; and we make sure
that they succeed. I do everything in my power not to let them
fail.
The average cost is running for us about $5,000 per child
per year. So I know that--you know, we are glad to pay for
this. We are able. The good Lord has blessed us with a
successful company with many employees and many fine children.
But a lot of companies can't afford this; and your bill,
Congressman, I think is a wonderful step in the right
direction.
So I encourage all of you all to pass this bill. I can't
see how it is nothing but a slam dunk. It makes a lot of sense.
And I think money spent in this way, you know, when we are
spending our company money, or even if I am able to deduct it
from my taxes, I think I am more efficient with my money than
many other organizations are that give out moneys for
scholarships.
And so--but there is nothing that will make this country
stronger than educating our youth, and I support you
wholeheartedly. So on behalf of all of my employees and their
children and other businesses like mine, I thank you for the
opportunity to be here. And God bless you.
Chairman Keller. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Davis; and
we certainly appreciate all you are doing to make this country
better with your innovative programs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Davis, Owner, Davis Brothers Construction
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Keller, ranking member Kildee and Committee
Members. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify before the
Committee about how the private sector can help expand college access.
My name is Tom Davis and along with my brother Bob Davis, we are the
owners of Davis Brothers Construction. We have been in business for 20
years. We are a general contracting firm building apartments,
dormitories for Universities, and condominiums. We do an average dollar
volume of $50,000,000 per year.
Scholarships for the Children of Davis Brothers Employees
I was raised on a ranch in West Texas by two hard working, loving
parents who sacrificed much to put their four children through college.
Out of the four children, I was the only one who did not complete his
college education. It is the one failure in my life that I regret the
most. The good Lord has blessed my brother and myself with a great
company and many wonderful employees that have many wonderful children.
Because of this and my strong belief that we owe our children an
opportunity to attend college, my brother and myself have dedicated
ourselves to helping children get an education.
I am involved with three charities and they all involve children.
The first is the Star of Hope Mission in Houston, Texas. It is one of
the largest homeless missions in the country. The average age of the
homeless person in Houston is 9 years of age. I served on their board
for nine years and am still heavily involved. Another charity I am
involved with is the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo which last year
gave out $8,000,000 in scholarships to Texas students. I am currently
on their board of directors. The last charity I am involved with is
Elves & More, a Houston-based charity that gave away 20,800 bicycles
last Christmas to kids living below the poverty level. This is our
fifth year of existence and we have seen a marked increase in school
attendance because these children can now get to school on their bikes,
get to their jobs, get to their friends house, get to Scout meetings,
etc.
The point I am making is that by being an active board member of
these charities, I see first hand what happens when a child gets an
education and I see first hand what happens when a child does not get
an education.
Because of these experiences working with children and because
several of our employees have children that have reached the age to
attend college, my brother and I decided to start paying for their
college education. Davis Brothers Construction currently has 37 full-
time employees and as of today we have seven of our employee's children
enrolled in college full-time. All of these kids live at home with
their parents and Davis Brothers pays for their tuition and books. On
the average, it is about $5,000 per child per year. This is our third
year since implementing this program. We monitor each student by
requiring they bring us reports during the year and if they are having
difficulty in a class, we help by getting them the necessary tutoring
they need to succeed. Because of the way we treat our employees and
their children, they literally would walk through fire for us. All
companies, large and small are nothing without their employees. The
Family Friendly Employers Act you are considering would make a huge
difference, not only for companies making a decision to help their
employees with their children's education, but also in our society. I
am of the opinion that dollars spent in this way will be much more
effective than programs that merely give monies, because those other
programs require large administrative overhead expenses.
The State of Texas does not currently have any incentives that I
know of to encourage companies to help with their employees' children's
education.
The Family Friendly Employers Act
I believe this bill will encourage more businesses like mine to
invest in education and help send more kids to school. While I am happy
to provide this benefit for my employees and their children, I know
that some businesses simply do not have the resources to pay for it out
of pocket. A tax incentive like the one provided in the Family Friendly
Employers Act would encourage more businesses to help send their
employees' children to college.
A business is only as good as its employees. Because of what we do
with our employees, our turnover in our employees is non-existent.
Moral is high and the quality of work we receive from our employees is
outstanding.
Conclusion
In conclusion, on the behalf of my employees their children, and
businesses like mine across the county, I encourage Congress to pass
the Family Friendly Employers Act.
And I will say it one more time. We owe it to the youth of this
country.
Thank you, Chairman Keller and other Committee Members, for holding
this hearing on a topic so important to our nation's businesses,
workforce and students.
______
Chairman Keller. Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF ALLISON JONES, ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR OF
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND STUDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT, CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Jones. Good morning. Chairman Keller, Ranking Member
Kildee and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to discuss the California State University programs that
support access to California's neediest students and the
importance of Federal student financial aid to help achieve
that goal. The CSU commends the committee for its attention to
the important task of ensuring that every student who to
chooses to do so can pursue a postsecondary education.
Today, I would like to share with you several key outreach
programs that CSU has developed, as well as Federal and State
programs in which CSU is a key partner that supports student
academic preparation and access to college.
First of all, a slight word about CSU and who we are, to
give you a sense of context. CSU, or the California State
University, is the largest 4-year university system in the
country, with 23 campuses and over 405,000 students. Our
mission is to provide high-quality, affordable education. We
play a critical role in preparing outstanding candidates for
the job market not only in California but nationally.
For instance, we confer 65 percent of all the bachelor's
degrees in business, over half of the degrees in agriculture
and agricultural engineering, and nearly half of the degrees in
computer and electronic engineering. Altogether, over half of
the bachelor's degrees in the State of California and a third
of the masters degrees are awarded by the California State
University.
The students we serve are not typically the traditional
student, the traditional 18- to 22-year-old. The average age of
the students that we serve is 24; 44 percent of our students
are independent from their parents; 40 percent are parents; 80
percent have jobs and 36 percent of those work full time; 20
percent are the first in their family to attend college; 40
percent come from households where the primary language is a
language other than English; and well over half of our students
qualify for Federal financial aid.
So we spend as an institution a great deal of time building
bridges with our State's K-12 partners. We try to help more
students prepare for and to succeed to enroll at the CSU, but
particularly those students who are underserved and first-
generation college students.
One of the most important tools that the California State
University has developed to reach high school students is our
Early Assessment Program. It is 3 years old. It prepares
students for the academic rigors of college, and it reduces the
time to the degree--to the extent that students are prepared
academically to enter the California State University. As a
result, it maximizes the use of both the Federal and State
financial aid.
The Early Assessment Program identifies students before
their senior year--that is, students in the 11th grade--who
need to do additional work in English and mathematics prior to
entering the California State University. That is, they need to
demonstrate the requisite skills expected of a graduating high
school senior.
More importantly, it provides an opportunity for students
in high school to use their 12th grade year very effectively to
master the requisite English and math skills expected again of
a graduating high school senior, not only going in the
workforce but entering the California State University.
We have attached to our testimony a copy of a presentation
which we would ask be included as part of the record. While
this program is voluntary, nearly 200,000 students Statewide
have taken this. It is voluntary on the part the students in
11th grade. Nearly 70 percent of the students will take it in
math and about 15 percent will take it in English, and they are
using the senior year most effectively to try to increase those
skills that they enter school without the need for remediation.
Another important academic outreach program is our Steps to
College poster. Members have been provided a copy of the
poster, but it provides to information about academic
preparation and financial aid beginning in 6th grade through
12th grade.
For the next wave of California students, many of whom are
the first in their families to go to college, information and
planning is absolutely critical. To reach out to under-served
communities and students, the California State University has
been working with churches throughout the State of California.
Earlier this year, we held what we call Super Sunday in south
central L.A. We worked with eight churches and reached over
20,000 people. Our chancellor and president were invited to
make presentations during the services. We handed out over
10,000 posters to families, their students and grandparents and
aunts and uncles. It was a very successful program.
Foster Youth is another group of students that we are
providing services to that are often overlooked. These
students, as wards of the court, have special needs that we
need to attend to.
There is also most recently a veterans' initiative that we
have begun with the Governor of the State of California as well
as the military base commanders to provide access to men and
women exiting California, in California. There are about 60,000
veterans who are exiting California, the military, and we want
to provide access to them.
TRIO and GEAR UP is a very important program to us as well.
It reduces the need for remediation. About 11 of our campuses
are actively engaged in this, and we continue to support and we
are pleased that H.R. 609 continues to maintain TRIO and GEAR
UP as separate programs which we would continue to request
occur.
Last, financial aid. The Pell Grant continues to represent
the foundation of the Federal student financial aid program. It
is absolutely essential to us. We note that in H.R. 609 the
College Access and Opportunity Act has increased the authorized
maximum Pell Grant, and we do in fact urge the subcommittee
members to work with Appropriations Committee to increase the
funded award.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Jones.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Allison G. Jones, Assistant Vice Chancellor,
California State University System
Introduction
Chairman Keller, Ranking Member Kildee, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the California State
University (CSU) programs that support access to California's neediest
students and the importance of federal student financial aid to help
achieve that goal. The CSU commends the Committee for its attention to
the important task of ensuring that every student that chooses to do so
can pursue a postsecondary education.
Today, I would like to share with you several key outreach programs
that the CSU has developed and implemented, as well as federal and
state programs in which the CSU is a key partner: the Early Assessment
Program (EAP), Steps to College poster, Super Sunday, foster youth
programs, California Veterans Education Opportunity Partnerships, Math,
Engineering, and Science Advancement (MESA), TRIO, and GEAR UP. Each of
these programs support student academic preparation and access. I will
conclude with a few remarks about federal and state student financial
aid. But first, a few words about the CSU and its students.
The California State University--Background
Few, if any, university systems can match the scope of the CSU
system. The CSU is the largest four-year university system in the
country, with 23 campuses, approximately 405,000 students and 44,000
faculty and staff. The CSU's mission is to provide high-quality,
affordable education to meet the ever-changing needs of the people of
California. Since the system's creation in 1961, it has awarded about 2
million degrees. We currently award approximately 84,000 degrees each
year.
The CSU plays a critical role in preparing outstanding candidates
for the job market. Our graduates help drive California's aerospace,
healthcare, entertainment, information technology, biomedical,
international trade, education, and multimedia industries. The CSU
confers 65 percent of California's bachelor's degrees in business, 52
percent of its bachelor's degrees in agricultural business and
agricultural engineering, and 45 percent of its bachelor's degrees in
computer and electronic engineering. The CSU also educates the
professionals needed to keep the state running. It provides bachelor's
degrees to teachers and education staff (87 percent), criminal justice
workers (89 percent), social workers (87 percent) and public
administrators (82 percent). Altogether, about half the bachelor's
degrees and a third of the master's degrees awarded each year in
California are from the CSU.
One key feature of the CSU is its affordability. For 2005/06, the
CSU's systemwide fee for full-time undergraduate students is $2,520.
With individual campus fees added in, the CSU's total fees average
$3,164, which is the lowest among any of the CSU's comparison public
institutions nationwide. We try to keep our costs down--and in fact
Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed buying out a fee increase
scheduled for this year--yet many of our students continue to have
great financial need. Approximately half of our students receive
financial aid.
The California State University--Its Students
CSU students are not necessarily the traditional 18- to 22-year-
olds. A recent survey of CSU students revealed the following about
students enrolled at the CSU:
The average undergraduate age is 24,
About 85 percent are commuters,
44 percent are independent from their parents,
Nearly two in five have dependents,
Four out of five have jobs, and 36 percent work full time,
About one in five is in the first generation in their
family to attend college,
40 percent come from households where English is not the
main language spoken, and
54 percent of CSU students are students of color.
The CSU prides itself on its ability to provide college access to
students across California's increasingly diverse population. The CSU
provides more than half of all undergraduate degrees granted to the
state's Latino, African American and Native American students.
Additionally, CSU students are closely connected and committed to
the communities in which they live. More than 185,000 CSU students
participate in community service annually, donating nearly 30 million
hours, the minimum wage equivalent of $200 million.
Public/Private Partnerships
Public-private partnerships are vital for higher education. In
today's economy, higher education is more important than ever.
According to the Census Bureau, a college graduate's lifetime earnings
($2.1 million) are almost double that of a high school graduate. But a
higher degree is more than just a ticket to a better job. It can
improve the economic situation of both individuals and their
communities. That's why it is in everyone's interest--communities,
businesses, and educators--to help students succeed in school and
pursue the highest degree they can. In fact, we cannot state this fact
strongly enough: The future success of our country's economy is
inextricably linked with the educational attainment of our students.
Given this conviction, the CSU recently sought to measure its
impact, economic and otherwise, on California's businesses and
communities. A comprehensive study of the CSU and its campuses found
that CSU-related expenditures create $13.6 billion in economic
activity, support 207,000 jobs and generate $760 million in state taxes
in a year. The report also found that the state of California reaps a
four-fold benefit from every dollar it invests in the CSU. This study
further cemented our belief that the CSU's work is tightly bound to
that of our local communities and economy. Essentially, we see
ourselves as building bridges--building continuity across the spectrum
from education, to the economy and workforce, to the community.
K-12 Partnerships
A good place to start this discussion is at the very beginning of
the education-workforce continuum, in the public schools. Given that
the public schools are the source of nearly all CSU students, the CSU
spends a great deal of time building bridges with our state's K-12
partners. Specifically, we have been reaching out to middle and high
schools to try to help more students prepare for and get ready to
succeed in college.
When we say that 54 percent of the CSU's students are students of
color, it may sound like a large number, but that's not necessarily the
case when you look at the students who are in the pipeline. Right now,
approximately two-thirds of our state's K-12 students are students of
color. CSU believes the future of higher education in this country
depends on its ability to reach those students of color and students
from traditionally underrepresented groups whom we have not yet
reached.
Early Assessment Program
One of the most important tools the CSU has developed to reach high
school students is the Early Assessment Program, known in California as
simply the ``EAP.'' CSU created this early assessment of college
readiness program in collaboration with the California Department of
Education and the State Board of Education. It provides 11th grade
students a 'snapshot' of their mathematics and English/language arts
proficiency. The test incorporates the CSU's placement standards into
the California Standards Tests for English and math.
The EAP identifies students--before their senior year--who need to
do additional work in English and/or mathematics prior to entering the
CSU. The EAP informs students, families, and high schools of a
student's readiness for college-level work in these subjects. Most
importantly, it provides an opportunity for the high school to work
with the students while they are enrolled in 12th grade to help them to
master the requisite English and math skills expected of a graduating
high school senior. Attached to this testimony is a copy of CSU's
PowerPoint that provides more detail about the three key components of
the EAP: (1) early assessment in 11th grade in English and mathematics,
(2) supplemental high school preparation in 12th grade, and (3) teacher
professional development designed to equip high school English and
mathematics teachers with the tools necessary to ensure student mastery
of the content standards. Although the EAP is voluntary, over 186,000
students took the EAP test last year.
``Steps to College'' Poster
Another important outreach effort is our ``Steps to College''
poster. For the next wave of California's students, many of whom are
the first in their families to go to college, planning information is
critical. The CSU created this popular poster, which describes for
middle and high school students (grades 6 -12) and their families the
steps they need to take to prepare and apply for college and financial
aid. The poster, which has served as a model for similar publications
at universities from Nevada to Pennsylvania, won a silver medal in the
CASE Circle of Excellence International competition.
For the last six years, we have distributed copies of the poster in
English and Spanish to middle and high schools throughout California.
Last year, we partnered with Boeing to create additional English/
Spanish versions of the poster and expand the distribution to local
libraries and youth organizations. We also partnered with three Asian
newspapers to print and distribute copies of the poster in Chinese,
Korean, and Vietnamese.
Community Partnerships
Over the past year, CSU has held town hall meetings with African-
American, Hispanic, and Vietnamese communities to discuss how
collectively we can better reach out to and serve students in those
communities. We are continuing to meet with working groups from these
and other traditionally underrepresented communities to help them to
maximize their chances for success in higher education by providing
information on how to prepare academically and financially for college.
We are sharing with these communities the value of a CSU education as
the bridge to economic opportunity and professional success. In
addition to providing information to students and their families, the
CSU is providing an opportunity to inform leaders and members of these
communities about CSU's role and impact on educating African American,
Hispanic, and Vietnamese students. These activities are building long-
term partnerships with African American, Hispanic, and Vietnamese
community leaders who work with and influence the youth in their
respective communities.
Super Sunday
For example, CSU is working with churches in the Los Angeles Basin
that serve large African-American congregations in an effort to
increase the pool of African-American students, particularly male, to
be eligible to attend a four-year university. Earlier this year, we
held ``Super Sunday'' at West Angeles Cathedral and other churches in
the Los Angeles area to provide information for students and their
families about college. We went to eight churches and reached over
20,000 people. We handed out the ``Steps to College'' poster to about
10,000 parents, grandparents and students. Our follow-up has created a
contact person at every church who is dedicated to college knowledge
and college preparation. Previously only one church had a contact
person for higher education. In the near future, we will be holding
similar events in the Oakland area.
We have also partnered with the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute and
Sallie Mae on a large grant to support ``Kids to College,'' aimed at
helping sixth graders in underserved communities learn what it takes to
get to college.
Foster Youth
In 1996, the California Legislature called upon the CSU and the
California Community Colleges (CCC) to expand access and retention
programs to include outreach services to emancipated foster youth in
order to encourage their enrollment in a CSU or a CCC. The CSU and the
California Community Colleges were asked to review housing issues and
to provide technical assistance to assist those prospective foster
youth students in completing admission applications and financial aid
applications for students who voluntarily disclosed their status as
emancipated former foster youth.
The Independent Living Program (ILP), administered by the
California Department of Social Services (CDSS) through the local
county social services departments and through the CCC, enables
eligible foster youth to achieve self sufficiency prior to leaving the
foster care support system by providing independent living skills
assessments and providing services based on them. The ILP coordinators
work with local area CSU campuses and county foster youth programs to
provide outreach and student services. At the request of Chancellor
Charles B. Reed, CSU campuses developed programs that addressed the
special needs of foster youth enrolling on their campuses, including
special attention to counseling foster youth about housing
opportunities available on campus and in the local community during the
summer preceding enrollment, Thanksgiving vacation, winter recess, and
spring break.
CSU Fullerton's Guardian Scholars Program is a representative
example of activities in which many CSU campuses are engaged. The
program is committed to supporting ambitious, college-bound students
exiting the foster care system. CSU Fullerton provides a comprehensive
program that contributes to the quality and depth of the student's
university experience. It serves as a resource for young adults by
assisting in their development and equipping them with the educational
and interpersonal skills necessary to become self-supporting, community
leaders, role models, and competent professionals in their selected
fields.
Difficult situations and backgrounds have left some foster care
youth with significant hardships in their lives. Many of these young
people have overcome these challenges. Their academic performance in
high school has qualified them to meet CSU Fullerton admission
standards. As wards of the court, these foster care youth become
emancipated at age 18 and are forced to make a difficult transition to
adulthood often without traditional family support. By awarding a five-
year scholarship, the Guardian Scholars program provides the
opportunity to change individual lives and make dreams come true.
Each fall semester CSU Fullerton endeavors to admit ten new
students into the Guardian Scholars program with an ultimate goal of
reaching fifty scholars in the program at one time. In addition to all
annual fees, academic tuition, textbooks and supplies, the program
provides support to emancipated foster youth such as an orientation to
university life, year-round, on-campus housing, on-campus student
employment opportunities, one-to-one counseling, peer and faculty
mentoring, financial aid application assistance, assistance with off-
campus employment in career fields, and post-graduation career planning
and assistance.
The Guardian Scholars program is a working partnership between the
private sector and public agencies designed to achieve significant
synergies which allow us to support our students effectively and cost-
efficiently. CSU Fullerton, the Orangewood Children's Foundation,
public agencies, and private citizens create a powerful team dedicated
to assisting deserving foster youth to achieve their dreams of a
college education, realize true independence and reach their full
potential. We urge Congress to encourage these types of programs on a
national level.
California Veterans Education Opportunities Partnership
The CSU has pledged to work with Governor Schwarzenegger and
California's military base commanders to reach out to military men and
women who are on active duty and who are exiting the service to
facilitate their transition to college. Last month, the Governor
announced the formation of the Veterans Education Opportunities
Partnership, which will create a model for veterans' education by
developing an academic outreach, admission, and enrollment plan that
targets and assists the approximately 60,000 California veterans
exiting military service each year. The partnership consists of senior
administration officials, military leaders, and leaders of the CSU, UC,
and the CCC system. The partnership will seek to work cooperatively to
provide education opportunities to veterans who are California
residents or who are stationed in California at the time of their exit
from the military.
The total active U.S. Military force includes 1.42 million men and
women of whom 160,000 (11.2 percent) come from California.
Approximately 175,000 active duty men and women are stationed in
California. An additional 25,000 serve in the Reserves. The Montgomery
GI Bill education benefit is the number one reason American men and
women enter the U.S. military. Therefore, each member of the military
pool of over 200,000 men and women serving in California is a potential
candidate for admission to one of California's 109 California Community
Colleges, 23 CSU campuses, and 10 UC campuses.
Approximately 60,000 of a pool of over 200,000 men and women exit
military service annually. According to the U.S. Department of Defense,
the average age of exiting Veterans is 25.3 years. Eighty-four percent
are male, and sixteen percent are female. Ninety-six percent of exiting
Veterans are enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill, but only fifty percent
are using their Montgomery GI Bill benefits. The CCC, the CSU, and the
UC represent education opportunities for exiting Veterans, both for
California residents and for service members stationed in California.
A Memorandum of Understanding implementing the California Veterans
Education Opportunities Partnership will be signed by the Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chancellor Charles B. Reed for CSU, President
Robert C. Dynes for UC, and Chancellor Mark Drummond for the California
Community Colleges. The MOU will implement California's vision to be
the leader in becoming ``Veteran friendly'' for college and university
education. California will become the model state for Veteran education
and will ensure Veterans who are California residents or who are
stationed in California at the time of their exit from the military
access to California colleges and universities.
MESA (Math, Engineering, and Science Achievement)
Since 1970, MESA's academic development programs have supported
educationally disadvantaged students to encourage them to excel in math
and science studies and to graduate with degrees in engineering,
science, and technology. MESA tries to reach economically and
educationally disadvantaged students. This program involves the CSU,
University of California (UC), California Community Colleges,
Independent Colleges, and industry partners. It is funded by the
California legislature, corporate contributions, and grants.
The MESA Schools Program serves middle and senior high school
students throughout California to introduce them to math and science.
MESA supports their mastery of these content areas in an effort to
encourage them to enroll in college in math-based majors. This program
partners with teachers, administrators, school district officials, and
industry representative to provide an academic enrichment model. The
MESA Community College Program supports community college students so
they will transfer to four-year universities as majors in math,
engineer, science, and technology. The MESA Engineering Program centers
provide support to educationally disadvantaged students at four-year
colleges to attain engineering or computer science baccalaureate
degrees.
Seventy-seven percent of MESA students successfully complete
Algebra I before the 10th grade. More encouraging, fifty-four percent
complete the CSU and UC college preparatory high school course pattern
consisting of fifteen courses. Of MESA high school graduates, fifty-
seven percent enrolled in college as math, science, or engineering
majors.
Nine of nineteen MESA pre-college sites and eight of ten MESA
engineering programs are located on CSU campuses. Fifty-seven percent
of MESA's pre-college students were served by centers located on CSU
campuses, and for the past five years, over twenty-five percent of MESA
high school graduates have enrolled at a CSU campus. Nearly fifty
percent of MESA community college students transferred to CSU campuses.
TRIO and GEAR UP
``The California State University joins the education community in
full support of the GEAR UP program, which is vital to preparing
underrepresented students for college, encouraging persistence and
ultimately graduation. Skills gained through the GEAR UP program will
reduce the need for remediation, saving students and institutions time
and money. This is a program we can all be proud of for what it does
for students.''
California State University Chancellor Charles B. Reed.
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR UP) was authorized in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 to
provide low-income middle school students the skills, encouragement,
and academic preparation needed to enter and succeed in high school and
postsecondary education through partnerships between schools,
universities, the private sector, and community organizations. GEAR UP
provides six-year grants to states and partnerships to strengthen
academic programs and student services at participating high-poverty
middle and high schools. Grantees serve an entire cohort of students
beginning no later than the seventh grade and follow the cohort through
high school. GEAR UP funds are also used to provide college
scholarships to low-income students.
Eleven CSU campuses have been designated as the fiscal agent for
GEAR UP Partnership Grants totaling over $112 million since the
inception of the program in 1999. These partnerships include at least
one low-income middle school and at least two other partners. CSU
campuses are also participants in other partnership grants for which a
local school district is the fiscal agent. For example, four CSU
campuses are participating in five 2005 partnerships: CSU Long Beach is
a participant in a partnership grant awarded to the Bellflower Unified
School District; CSU Northridge, with two partnership grants awarded to
the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD); CSU Dominguez Hills,
with LAUSD; and San Diego State University with Sweetwater Unified
School District.
An example of a successful GEAR UP program at CSU East Bay is
Successful Options for Academic Readiness (SOAR). The campus received a
$2.808 million federal GEAR UP Partnership Grant to promote access to
and success in higher education for low-income students enrolled in 7th
grade in 14 of Oakland's middle schools. SOAR consists of fours strands
that will affect the needs of the middle school students: an academic
strand, a parent strand, a partnership strand, and a systemic change
strand. In addition to the partnership grants received by CSU campuses,
California was awarded a second State GEAR UP Grant for a total of $21
million over six years, having just completed administering its first
six-year grant totaling $30 million that was awarded in 1999. A total
of 196,000 low-income students in 187 middle schools in 80 school
districts have been served by California GEAR Up. The number of schools
represents 15.6 percent of all middle schools in California. The number
of students represents 31 percent of all students who attend a low-
income middle school in California. California receives the largest
amount of GEAR UP resources of any state.
An important outcome of GEAR UP is the documented increases in
student academic preparation. California GEAR UP middle schools have
offered more college preparation classes, and the number of students
taking college preparatory courses has grown.
Participating GEAR UP middle schools have increased the
number of college preparatory sections in English/Language Arts by 54
percent; Mathematics, by 46 percent; Science, by 24 percent; and Social
Sciences, by 92 percent;
20 percent more students are enrolling in Algebra in
middle schools;
64 percent of the students are enrolled in advanced
mathematics courses in high school; and
48 percent of the students are taking Honors level courses
in English in high school.
GEAR UP is distinct from other federal and state initiatives. This
program employs partnerships committed to serving and accelerating the
academic achievement of cohorts of students through their high school
graduation. GEAR UP partnerships supplement rather than supplant
existing reform efforts, offer services that promote academic
preparation and the understanding of necessary costs to attend college,
provide professional development, and continuously build capacity so
that projects can be sustained beyond the term of the grants.
The CSU notes that the Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization
legislation, which originated in this subcommittee and recently passed
the House, maintains TRIO and GEAR UP as separate programs, and CSU
thanks you for that. The CSU joins the higher education community in
support of both the TRIO and GEAR UP programs and proposes that these
important programs be expanded to serve an increased number of
disadvantaged and low-income students. The TRIO and GEAR UP programs
are vital to preparing underrepresented students for college,
encouraging persistence and ultimately graduation. Skills gained
through the TRIO and GEAR UP programs reduce the need for remediation,
saving students and institutions time and money. While these programs
complement each other, each has a unique purpose and method, and each
serves a unique cohort of students. Accordingly, the CSU supports
keeping these two programs distinctly separate and complementary.
In the spirit of today's topic to encourage more public-private
partnerships to complement federal investment in student aid, the CSU
proposes three modifications to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs. First,
the TRIO program should be expanded to include community-based
organizations with experience in serving disadvantaged youth. Second,
incentives should be created within both programs to encourage middle
schools and high schools to form partnerships with colleges to develop
college preparatory programs for disadvantaged students. Third,
incentives within these programs should be created to encourage and
prepare underrepresented students to pursue coursework and careers in
fields such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (the
``STEM'' fields).
Federal Financial Aid
Pell Grant Program--The Pell Grant program continues to represent
the foundation of federal student financial aid programs. As the most
need-focused federal student aid program, a strong Pell Grant program
is essential to closing the gap in college enrollment and completion
that exists between low-income students and their more affluent peers.
A continued commitment to the Pell Grant program, and to increases in
the maximum Pell Grant award, are essential to ensuring access for
disadvantaged students. Across the CSU System, 116,000 students receive
$318 million in Pell Grant awards. The average CSU Pell Grant recipient
receives $2,724 per year from the Pell Grant program, and Pell Grants
account for 19 percent of the funds awarded to CSU students. On behalf
of CSU students across California, I would like to thank the members of
the Committee for that support. I also note that HR 609, the College
Access and Opportunity Act, increased the authorized maximum Pell Grant
award. I would urge members of the subcommittee to work with the
Appropriations Committee to increase the funded maximum award.
In addition, there continues to be a need for a year-round Pell
Grant. Year-round study enables students to complete their academic
degree in less time than might otherwise be required. This reduces the
amount of time that a student spends in school, saves the student money
(and reduces borrowing), and permits more efficient use of campus
facilities and resources at a time when those resources are being
stretched due to increasing enrollments and tight state budgets.
Increasing enrollment demand will be a national trend for the
foreseeable future, and we fully expect a number of institutions to
utilize a year-round calendar as a resource management strategy. Such a
move may also increase student persistence and graduation from college.
The CSU strongly endorses the subcommittee's efforts to provide
additional Pell Grant funds to students for year-round study. On behalf
of the CSU, I also want to thank you for including specific provisions
which will allow students at the CSU and at other institutions serving
large numbers of non-traditional students to participate. Finally, I
would also note that probably the most beneficial year-round Pell grant
provision, both for students and for institutions, would be to permit
utilization of Pell Grants for students who enroll for summer study in
order to complete their remaining degree requirements, even if they do
not need to enroll full-time, rather than having them enroll for an
entire term in the subsequent academic year. Such a provision should be
open to students at any Title IV eligible institution.
Campus-Based Programs--The Campus-Based programs (Perkins Loans,
Federal Work-Study, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
(SEOG)) are vital to the CSU's efforts to attract, retain, and graduate
disadvantaged students. Unique to these programs is the flexibility
they provide to financial aid administrators to package aid awards to
best meet the needs of their students. In addition, these programs
require an institutional match, which leverages the federal investment
to provide even more aid to more students. The CSU knows that these
programs work, and joins the higher education community in urging
increased funding for them. In addition, we thank you for continuing
the Perkins Loan program, and again ask members of the subcommittee to
work with the Appropriations Committee to fund the Perkins Loan capital
contribution.
California Financial Aid
California is unique in that its Governor and Legislature enacted a
state grant entitlement program in 2000. This historic financial aid
program opened university doors for thousands more students. By taking
this bold step, California announced to all financially needy students
that if they earn the grades and are eligible for college, they are
assured a state grant to help pay the entire cost of CSU fees as well
as fees at the UC and grants to offset part of the tuition at other
eligible California colleges.
Because of fiscal constraints in 2000, however, some provisions
were included in the authorizing language restricting entitlement
grants to students under the age of 24. Because of this restriction,
the state also implemented a Competitive Cal Grant program with a
limited number of grants. Recently, legislation was introduced in the
California Legislature to expand further the eligibility for Cal Grant
Entitlement awards by increasing the eligibility for the entitlement
grant from 24 to 27 and by doubling the number of competitive grants.
Summary
All of these partnerships, and many, many others at our campuses,
do more than simply enrich our existing programs. They serve as
launching pads from which we are able to create new initiatives and
ideas, and they allow us to identify and meet the ever-changing needs
of our state's vital industries. The end result is better preparation
of students who are ready to enter the working world, filled with
current and relevant knowledge that will allow them to ``hit the ground
running'' in their chosen fields. It is these graduates who will form
the basis for our future workforce, and our nation's future economic
success.
Thank you again for taking the time to hear about the CSU system
and its public/private partnerships. Thank you also for your support
for the federal student financial aid programs that are so important to
CSU students. I will be glad to answer any questions you might have,
and look forward to working with you in the future.
______
Chairman Keller. Mr. Salandy.
STATEMENT OF RASSAN SALANDY, DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSITY RECRUITMENT
AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, THE POSSE FOUNDATION
Mr. Salandy. Good morning and thank you for inviting the
Posse Foundation to testify before this distinguished group. My
name is Rassan Salandy, and I am the Director of University
Recruitment for the Foundation.
The Posse Foundation began back in 1989 because of a
student who said I would have never dropped out of college if I
had my posse with me. Now, back in the '80's, posse was sort of
a cool term. Unfortunately, it no longer is. But the idea is
basic, you know, a group of friends going off to school that
can provide a support network for each other.
So that is exactly what the Foundation proceeded to do,
which was locate students, multi-cultural, and place them in a
multi-cultural team of 10 or so to be a network of support and
also be catalysts of change on campus.
To date, we have sent over 1,500 students off to college.
They have won over $142 million in college scholarships, and
they are persisting at a rate of 90 percent.
Let me say that again. They are persisting at a rate of 90
percent, which I am sure most of you know is well above the
national average.
We have got three goals. The first goal is to expand the
pool from which top and selective universities recruit
students. The second goal is to transform campus environments
so they can become more welcoming places to students from all
backgrounds. And, finally, we want to provide the kind of
support our students will need to graduate and take on
leadership positions in the workforce.
So, to accomplish that, the program is divided into four
parts. We have got a screening process, we have got an 8-month
pre-collegiate training program, a 4-year on campus program and
a career program; and, if I have time, I would like to talk
about each of these in turn.
The interview process, what we have got--what we use is a
tool called the Dynamic Assessment Process, dynamic because it
places students in an interactive situation. It allows us to
really zero in on those students who show exceptional
leadership qualities and academic promise. It is a tool that
has worked for us.
Beginning from--so if a student is selected for a Posse
scholarship, beginning from January all the way through to
August, 8 months, every week they meet for 2-hour weekly
workshop sessions with their peers and posse staff to work on
issues related to leadership development, academic
preparedness, team building and cross-cultural dialog.
Once on campus, they hit the campus--they hit the ground
running, really. They continue to meet weekly with their peers
in group meetings and also with a mentor that is established by
the universities we partner with to get advice. We as a Posse
staff also make visits to the campuses to check in with campus
liaisons and mentors and our students.
There is also a program component called the campus
PossePlus Retreat, which is an effort to bring the larger
campus community into the dialog and conversation that is
taking place within Posse cohorts.
Once students graduate and even during their time, we also
have a career program that does what you think a career program
ought to do, which is provide assistance in writing resumes and
how do you conduct yourself in an interview. But we have also
managed to develop some pretty incredible partnerships with
high-profile companies and organizations that offer our
students internships and other career-enhancing opportunities.
So I hope what is becoming obvious about the program and
what is unique about it is how comprehensive it is. It starts
with the student in their high school years, and it follows
them through to graduation and even into the workforce, and I
think that is what make the Posse Foundation program unique.
There are thousands and thousands of students whom programs
like Posse could reach with increased governmental support to
institutions of higher education. What we are seeing time and
time again is that, even with scholarship awards, many students
are struggling to make ends meet. Without Federal funding,
programs like ours cannot grow or work on a large scale. The
selective universities and colleges with whom we work are
dependent on Federal funding, the Federal funding they receive,
in order to recruit a diverse socioeconomic student body.
Our partner institutions financially support our students
as much as they can, but if they have to fully fund or to fund
in great proportions every poor kid who qualified, they
couldn't afford a program like Posse.
In summary, what we are able to do for the urban students
we serve, a student population that is really high need,
depends critically on the financial aid packages that our
university partners are able to offer our students.
Thank you.
Chairman Keller. Thank you, Mr. Salandy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salandy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rassan Salandy, Director of University
Recruitment and Public Relations, the Posse Foundation
The Posse Mission
Posse started because of one student who said, ``I never would have
dropped out of college if I had my posse with me.'' The Posse
Foundation, founded in 1989, identifies public high school students
with extraordinary academic and leadership potential who may be
overlooked by traditional college selection processes. The Foundation
extends to these students the opportunity to pursue personal and
academic excellence by placing them in supportive, multicultural teams
(``Posses'') of 10 students. Posse recruits outstanding student leaders
in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C and
sends them to some of the top colleges and universities in the country.
This year alone, over 6,500 students competed for 305 slots. Posse has
become a highly selective program whose reputation continues to grow.
Nevertheless, there is still much room for growth.
Posse's partner universities and colleges award Posse Scholars
four-year, full-tuition leadership scholarships. Currently, Posse has
partnerships with 24 competitive colleges and universities. They are:
Babson, Brandeis, Bryn Mawr, Bucknell, Carleton, Claremont McKenna,
Centre, Colby, Denison, DePauw, Dickinson, Franklin & Marshall,
Grinnell, Hamilton, Lafayette, Middlebury, Oberlin, Pomona, Trinity,
Union College, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Vanderbilt, and Wheaton. These incredible
institutions work together with Posse to provide students the support
they need to become outstanding leaders.
The Posse Foundation has three goals. Posse aims to 1) expand the
pool from which top colleges and universities can recruit outstanding
young leaders from diverse backgrounds, 2) help these institutions
build more interactive campus environments so that they can become more
welcoming institutions for people from all backgrounds and 3) ensure
that Posse Scholars persist in their academic studies and graduate so
they can take on leadership positions in the workforce. Moreover, The
Posse Program achieves its goals through four program components: 1)
The Dynamic Assessment Process (DAP), 2) an eight-month Pre-Collegiate
Training Program, 3) a four-year Campus Program, and 4) Posse's Career
Program. What follows is a description of each of these components.
Recruitment
From September to December each year, Posse conducts the Dynamic
Assessment Process (DAP), a unique evaluation method designed to
identify young leaders who might be missed by traditional admissions
criteria, but who can excel at selective colleges and universities.
Using non-traditional forums to evaluate potential, DAP offers students
an opportunity to demonstrate their intrinsic leadership abilities,
their skill at working in a team setting, and their motivation and
desire to succeed. DAP has proven to be an extremely effective tool for
identifying outstanding young leaders. In a three-part process,
including large group and individual interviews, Posse staff and
university partner administrators ultimately select a diverse group of
10 students for each college or university, thus forming a ``Posse.''
Pre-Collegiate Training
From January to August of their senior year in high school, Posse
Scholars meet weekly with staff trainers and their Posse peers for two-
hour workshops. The Training Program consists of workshops that address
four areas: 1) team building and group support, 2) cross-cultural
communication, 3) leadership and becoming an active agent of change on
campus and 4) academic excellence. The goal of the training program is
to prepare Scholars for leadership roles on campus and for the high-
level academic expectations of their colleges.
The Campus Program
Posse continues to offer support to Scholars once on campus. The
Campus Program works to ensure the retention of Posse Scholars and to
increase the impact of the Scholars and the Program on the college
campus. Posse staff members visit each university four times a year for
meetings with Posse Scholars, campus liaisons, and on-campus mentors.
Each mentor meets weekly with the Posse as a team and with individual
Scholars every two weeks during the first two years in college. In
addition, Posse facilitates an annual weekend-long PossePlus Retreat
attended by members of the larger student body, faculty, and
administration, with the goal of discussing an important campus issue
identified by Posse Scholars.
The Career Program
The Career Program-which consists of an internship component,
career services, and an alumni network-supports Posse Scholars as they
transition from being leaders on campus to becoming leaders in the
workforce. Posse plays an integral role in the professional development
of these young people by providing them with the tools and
opportunities necessary to secure highly competitive and career-
enhancing internships and jobs. One of the ways Posse achieves this is
by partnering with exceptional companies and organizations, both
nationally and abroad.
Accomplishments
Since 1989, Posse has sent over 1,500 students to selective
colleges and universities across the country. Posse Scholars have won
over $142 million in scholarships and are persisting in their studies,
graduating at a rate of over 90 percent-a rate significantly higher
than the national average. Moreover, Posses are having a dynamic effect
on campus. Posse Scholars are joining and assisting existing student
organizations, sometimes helping more tentative groups to feel more
comfortable voicing their concerns and achieving their goals. They are
establishing new student-run organizations on campus that continue
after they graduate. In fact, over 70 percent of Posse Scholars found
new campus organizations or go on to become presidents of already
existing ones. Posses also help to increase the numbers of Latino,
African American, Asian, and other students from diverse backgrounds in
the student populations at Posse partner institutions by helping to
make the campus more appealing to students from all backgrounds. The
benefits of the program extend well beyond the success rates of
individual scholars.
Long-Term Goals
Posse currently has over 300 alumni and, as mentioned above, is
partnered with 24 highly selective universities and colleges. By the
year 2020 The Posse Foundation expects to be operating out of 10
cities, partnered with approximately 80 universities, and boasting an
alumni network of over 7,000. Posse is an organization driven by the
belief that more can be done to identify students with exceptional
promise and academic ability. These are extraordinarily talented and
motivated young people who, if just given the opportunity, will excel.
The Posse Concept
The concept of a Posse works for both students and college
campuses, and is rooted in the belief that a small, diverse group of
talented students (a Posse) carefully selected and trained, can serve
as a catalyst for increased individual and community development. As
the United States becomes an increasingly multicultural society, Posse
believes that the leaders of this new century should reflect the
country's rich demographic mix, and that the key to a promising future
for our nation rests on the ability of strong leaders from diverse
backgrounds to develop consensus solutions to complex social problems.
The primary aim of the Posse Program is to cultivate these leaders of
tomorrow.
______
Chairman Keller. Mr. Merisotis.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE P. MERISOTIS, PRESIDENT, THE INSTITUTE FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY
Mr. Merisotis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Kildee, Chairman McKeon and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
Improving access to higher education continues to be one of
the most important contributions that the Federal Government
can make to our national well-being. But I believe that we now
stand at a critical juncture and face a great risk of creating
a society cleaved along very distinct lines, those who are able
to go to and complete college and those who are not.
According to the Census Bureau, while 75 percent of high-
income students enter college today, only 31 percent of low-
income students do. Federal Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance Data clearly show that limited financial
aid and declining affordability is already prohibiting hundreds
of thousands of college qualified high school graduates from
attending college.
So the discussion about Federal policy and paying for
college must focus on making educational opportunities possible
for those who otherwise would not do so. It is not simply that
it is the right thing to do, but it is that it is in our
collective economic and social self-interest to do so.
As the chairman has already noted, workers who have gone to
college have low unemployment rates; and projections show
almost all of the future job growth is in fields that require a
college education. The significantly higher earnings for
college graduates result in more government revenue that
supports our national defense, economic development and Social
Security. Increasing the number of college graduates also saves
millions of dollars in avoided social expenditures every year
as a result of improved health, reduced crime and reduced
welfare and unemployment.
Unfortunately, it is not hard to look at the recent Federal
policy environment for higher education and conclude that there
has been very little attention paid to the public good that
higher education contributes to our society. The debate over
the Higher Education Act reauthorization, the President's
budget and the disappointing $12 billion in cuts made in the
reconciliation bill last year all suggest that this Congress is
focused on the belief that individuals are the primary
beneficiaries and therefore should shoulder the burden of
paying, adding to what the Chronicle of Higher Education
recently said is a growing divide between the haves and the
have-nots.
I believe it is imperative to focus Federal policy in this
area on four key issues:
First, we must invest in need-based student aid as the best
and most effective way to promote access to postsecondary
education. The maximum Pell Grant today pays for less than half
of the average price of attending a public 4-year institution
compared to what it paid for in 1980. There has been no
substantial increase in the Pell Grant maximum over the last 5
years, even as college prices continue to rise at a rate higher
than inflation and family incomes. While more money is being
spent on the Pell Grant program, the overwhelming reason is
simply that more students qualified, that is there are more
poor people who are eligible for the program.
Meaningful increases in support for the Pell Grant program
should be a centerpiece of efforts to make a college
opportunity possible. We also need to look hard at student
loans. They are critical in mitigating some of the effects of
rising tuition, but they also have the potential negative
effect of increasing student debt.
One way to meet these seemingly divergent goals is to
increase loan limits modestly for first and second year
students, while also developing new opportunities for students
to receive a low interest rate that reflects our commitment to
their future and the benefits that they will provide to us as a
society.
On the other hand, strategies such as increasing tax
benefits to reduce tuition expenses will have little if any
affect on the populations most in need of further access to
higher education. Many low-income student do not qualify for
tuition tax benefits, and there is no evidence that tax
benefits increase postsecondary education enrollment, a key
reason to invest limited taxpayer resources.
Second, we must decisively and unequivocally support
increased investment in Upward Bound, Talent Search and GEAR UP
as essential components of our national access strategy. These
critical programs serve as key vehicles for improving the
higher education prospects for low-income, first-generation and
disabled students, as Mr. Jones has already noted. Nearly one-
third of all low-income high school graduates who actually
enroll in college have been served by a Federal TRIO program,
an incredible record of achievement.
The fundamental problem for Upward Bound, Talent Search and
GEAR UP is not under performance. It is a simple fact that
limited funding has allowed them to serve less than 10 percent
of the eligible populations.
Third, we must strengthenthe capacities of minority serving
institutions to educate the Nation's emerging majority
populations. Tribal colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions and
historically black colleges represent some of the Nation's most
important but underserved postsecondary resource. Given that
they serve a high proportion of under prepared and
underfinanced students, we must make minority serving
institutions central to our overall strategy of improving
student access and success.
Finally, we must engage the private sector in this campaign
to help students go to college, but only as a complement, not a
substitute to the critical support provided at the Federal
level.
As chairman-elect of Scholarship America, the Nation's
largest private-sector scholarship organization, I know well
that the more than $3 billion in scholarship aid provided by
local communities, businesses and employers is important to
those who receive it. But a significant proportion of private
aid is not need based, and low-income students and minorities
are less likely than more affluent students and whites to
receive private support.
It is important to emphasize that private aid is not a
substitute for government investment in need-based financial
aid and can't ever replace what is our essential Federal role
of equalizing opportunity for students with needs. In these
times of increasing concern about homeland security, global
competitiveness and national economic growth, investing in
increased Pell Grants, reduced interest on student loans,
increased support for TRIO programs and minority serving
institutions and increasing encouragement of private-sector
investment and grant aid are key strategies that can make a
difference in the lives of today's most marginalized and
underserved students.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merisotis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jamie P. Merisotis, President Institute for
Higher Education Policy
Chairman Keller and Ranking Member Kildee: Thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you.
It has taken centuries for our nation to construct the higher
education system of today. Step by step, the country has built public
and private universities, then sought to widen their reach through
legislation like the Morrill Act (1862) that promoted ``the liberal and
practical education of the industrial classes''; the GI Bill (1944)
that provided educational benefits to World War II veterans; the Truman
Commission and its support for community colleges; of course the Higher
Education Act of 1965 that seeded today's federal student aid system;
and the Pell Grant (1972) program that created federal grants for low-
income students.
As each successive change has opened the doors to higher education,
something equally if not more important has happened at the same time:
the value of a college degree-indeed, the need for a college degree-has
grown even faster. But we now stand at a critical juncture. We face a
great risk of creating a society cleaved along a very distinct line:
those who were able to go to and complete college, and those who were
not. It is true that we have always had these two groups in our
society. But in the future this division will be far more stratifying,
far more oppressive for those without a college degree, than we have
seen historically.
So who are we really talking about? According to date from the U.S.
Census Bureau, while 75% of high-income students enter college today,
only 31% of low-income students do. Federal Advisory Committee on
Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA) data clearly show that limited
financial aid and declining affordability is already prohibiting
hundreds of thousands of college-qualified high school graduates from
attending a four-year institution in 2002, and over 40 percent of those
students will not enter postsecondary education at all. Students with
the highest test scores from the lowest socioeconomic group attend
college at the same rate as students with the lowest test scores from
the highest socioeconomic group.
The same story holds true for enrollments of students of color. Of
traditional age students who go to college after graduating from high
school, college enrollment rates are about 10 percentage points higher
for whites than for African Americans or Hispanics. These gaps are even
wider for adult and so-called non-traditional students.
We also need to consider the question of where students are
enrolling. Former Princeton University and Mellon Foundation President
William Bowen's data shows that only 11 percent of students at
selective public and private institutions come from families in the
lowest income quartile (about $27,000 a year and under) and only 6
percent are first generation students.
So the discussion about federal policy and about haves and have-
nots, is about so much more than having and not having. A fundamental
premise of our democracy is on the line, and the democratic ideals upon
which our higher education system was founded are being undermined.
While the nation's attempt to provide equal opportunity to all of its
citizens has been halting at best, it has at least made progress over
the past century. If we start to go backwards-shutting more and more
people out of the opportunity afforded by higher education-we risk
creating groups that are bitterly divided and undermining the balance
that creates a nation's sense of shared interest. These groups are our
fastest growing, and therefore most important, in the battle for our
nation's economic and social well-being.
Research conducted both by my organization, the Institute for
Higher Education Policy, and many other independent research groups
demonstrates the dramatic benefits of the investment in higher
education. These benefits have economic, social, public, and private
dimensions. For example, statistics show that U.S. workers over the age
of 18 with a high school diploma earn an average of $27,280 annually,
while those with a bachelor's degree who earn an average of $51,194, or
nearly double. Over the course of a lifetime, those with a bachelor's
degree earn an average of almost one million dollars more than those
with a high school diploma. Workers who have attended college also tend
to have low rates of unemployment, and analyses of job growth and
employer demands typically suggest future job growth will be
increasingly concentrated in fields that require a college education.
One analysis found that in 1996, 62 percent of people working in the
nation's most elite jobs-meaning the managers and professionals with
the highest earnings-held a baccalaureate degree, and an additional 24
percent had some college experience.
Economic benefits also flow to society, on both a national and a
regional basis. Higher earnings for college graduates result in more
revenue for government coffers through increased tax collections. In
addition, increasing the number of college graduates would save
millions of dollars in avoided social costs every year, as a result of
improved health, reduced crime, and reduced welfare and unemployment.
For example, social costs for a 30-year-old White non-Hispanic woman
with a college degree average $800 per year less than the costs for one
with only a high school diploma. The social costs saved for 30-year-old
Black and Hispanic women with a college degree is even greater,
averaging $2,500. Experts estimate that the nation's Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) would increase by $231 billion-creating $80 billion worth
of new tax revenues-if college participation for students of color were
raised to the same level as for non-Hispanic Whites. State and federal
budget deficits may discourage policymakers from investing more
taxpayer money into any area, but higher education provides a
significant return on that investment.
Social benefits of postsecondary education also accrue to
individuals and to the public. For example, people with more education
tend to have greater health/life expectancy. In 2004, 93 percent of
people age 25 and older who had attained a bachelor's degree described
their health as good, very good, or excellent, compared to 82 percent
of people whose highest level of education was a high school diploma.
Public benefits from higher education include reduced crime rates,
increased civic participation, and more charitable giving and
volunteerism. For example, in 2004, 36 percent of people age 25 and
older who had earned a bachelor's degree or higher reported they had
ever volunteered for or through an organization, compared to 21 percent
of people whose highest level of education was a high school diploma.
Given these benefits, the American public generally sees the need
for at least some college education. A 2003 survey found that 87
percent of respondents thought a high school graduate should continue
on to college instead of starting a job, 37 percent said that a college
degree is necessary for success, and 76 percent felt that college is
more important today than it was ten years ago.
Unfortunately, it's hard not to look at the recent federal policy
environment for higher education and come to a sobering conclusion;
namely, despite this evidence, the reality is that there has been very
limited attention paid to the demonstrable public good that higher
education contributes to our society. The debate over HEA
reauthorization, the President's budget, recent trends in funding of
programs, and the disappointing $12 billion in cuts made in the
reconciliation bill last year all clearly indicate that this Congress
is focused narrowly on the belief that individuals are the primary
beneficiaries and therefore should shoulder the burden of paying. Even
with the veritable mountain of data that has been amassed to
demonstrate that higher education does much more than simply provide
individuals with greater earnings capacity, what we are spending most
of our federal policy energy on is getting more for less, squeezing so-
called inefficient institutions, and improving opportunities for middle
income families, adding to what the Chronicle of Higher Education
recently said is a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots.
It's also increasingly apparent that politics has trumped policy
when it comes to higher education. With the exception perhaps of the
deliberate strategy being taken by the National Commission on the
Future of Higher Education appointed by Secretary Spellings, there has
been virtually no effort to have a reasoned public debate about higher
education and its importance to the nation. There has been no serious
effort to understand what happens if we leave more and more of our
fastest growing and must vulnerable populations behind. This is not the
way it has always been, despite our persistent cynicism in Washington.
Funding for education, support for student opportunity-these have been
hallmarks of bipartisan, collaborative efforts in the Congress, even in
deeply partisan times in our past history-in 1998, during the Clinton
impeachment debate, in 1980, with the Iran hostage crisis and crippling
inflation, and in 1972, during what was then the beginning of the end
for President Nixon.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the details of the policy debates-
speaking a language that anyone outside of the small circle of policy
technicians would find bewildering and nonsensical-that I think we lose
sight of some of the simplest, most straightforward strategies. So here
are just a few ideas about what I think needs to be done:
First, we must invest in need-based student aid as the best and
most important way to promote access to postsecondary education. In the
early 1990s, a bipartisan federal commission called the National
Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education
(for which I served as Executive Director) issued a widely-circulated
report called Making College Affordable Again. The legislation creating
the commission, authored by Senator Jeffords of Vermont in the late
1980s, noted that the purchasing power of aid had been rapidly
declining through the decade of the 1980s, leading to increasing
concerns about access to postsecondary education. In commenting on the
legislation, Senator Jeffords noted, ``Without affordable postsecondary
education, without national support for meaningful access for able
students to take advantage of higher education opportunities, we will
not be able to accomplish any of the objectives that we strive for as a
nation and a leader of nations.'' The final report of the commission,
issued in 1993, recommended several important improvements to federal
student aid, many of which have subsequently been enacted. But the
Commission's major recommendation-to guarantee access to higher
education for all students, based on a sliding subsidy scale tied to
financial need-remains elusive. Regrettably, many of the commission's
concerns regarding affordability and accessibility resonate even more
profoundly with students and families more than a decade later.
I firmly believe that investment in need-based financial aid is the
best and most important contribution that the federal government can
make to keeping the dream of a college education a reality for all
Americans. The declining purchasing power of federal aid continues to
be a critical barrier to access to higher education. The maximum Pell
Grant today pays for less than half of the average price of attending a
public four-year institution compared to what the maximum Pell Grant
paid for in 1980. There has been no substantial increase in the Pell
Grant maximum over the past five years, even as college prices continue
to rise at a rate higher than inflation and family incomes. While more
money is being spent on the Pell Grant program, the overwhelming reason
is simply that more students qualify-that is, there are more poor
people who are eligible for the program. Meaningful increases in
support for the Pell Grant program should be a centerpiece of efforts
to make college opportunity possible. Let's not pretend that these
efforts to do more with less, or to do less with less, will do anything
to dramatically narrow the opportunity gaps. Significant investment is
the only thing that has worked in the past, and it's what needs to be
done now.
We also need to look hard at student loans. Loans are not a
preferred method of paying for college. But they are a reality in
today's world of college financing. The key is to simultaneously
increase loan limits for some students to mitigate some of the effects
of rising prices while also limiting the potential negative effects of
increasing student debt. One way to meet these seemingly divergent
goals is to increase loan limits modestly, especially for first and
second year students, while also developing new opportunities for
students to receive a low interest rate that reflects our commitment to
their future and the benefits that they will provide to us as a
society.
On the other hand, strategies such as increasing tax benefits to
reduce tuition expenses will have little if any effect on the
populations most in need of further access to higher education. Many
low income students do not quality for tuition tax benefits-only about
a quarter of the Hope and Lifetime tax credits go to students with
adjusted gross incomes less than $30,000-and there is some evidence
that many eligible students do not claim the tax benefits, especially
those from minority groups. Perhaps most importantly, there is no
evidence that tax benefits increase postsecondary education enrollment-
a key reason to invest limited taxpayer resources.
Second, we must decisively and unequivocally support programs such
as Upward Bound, Talent Search, and GEAR UP as essential components of
our national access strategy. These critical programs serve as key
vehicles for improving the higher education prospects of low-income,
first-generation, and disabled students. The programs provide a
continuum of services from pre-college to pre-graduate level study for
the nation's low-income, first-generation, and disabled students. In FY
2006, the $828 million in funding for TRIO programs supported more than
850,000 students in over 2,700 distinct TRIO programs. Yet despite this
support, less than 10 percent of the eligible populations are served by
TRIO programs.
There are a total of seven TRIO programs. The pre-college programs
include Talent Search, which provides counseling and information about
college admissions requirements and student financial aid to young
people in grades six through 12, and Upward Bound, which works with
students starting in the 9th grade to provide instruction in
literature, composition, mathematics, and science on college campuses
after school, on Saturdays and during the summer. In addition, Upward
Bound Math Science helps students from low-income families to
strengthen math and science skills, frequently providing research
opportunities for underrepresented students, while Veterans Upward
Bound provides intensive basic skills development and short-term
remedial courses for military veterans to help them successfully
transition to postsecondary education.
At the college level, Student Support Services programs provide
tutoring, counseling, and supplemental instruction to help students
stay in college through the completion of a degree, and in the case of
community colleges, assist them in the transfer process. The Ronald E.
McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement programs are designed to
encourage low-income students and minority undergraduates to consider
careers in college teaching as well as prepare for doctoral study.
Students who participate in this program are provided with research
opportunities and faculty mentors. Finally, the Educational Opportunity
Centers located throughout the country primarily serve displaced or
underemployed workers from low-income families with incomes.
For the last two years, the Upward Bound, Talent Search, and GEAR
UP programs have inexplicably been proposed for elimination as part of
the President's budget. Given their importance to the populations most
in need of college access-nearly one-third of all low-income high
school graduates who actually enroll in college have been served by a
TRIO program-we must not only be categorically opposed to the
elimination of these programs, but we should also support significant
funding increases in each of these programs and not allow the diversion
of funding from these proven programs to support other education
initiatives.
Third, we must strengthen the capacities of minority-serving
institutions (MSIs) to educate the nation's emerging majority
populations. Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Hispanic-Serving
Institutions (HSIs), and Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs) and other predominantly Black institutions represent some of
the nation's most important but underserved postsecondary education
resources. Combined, more than 1.8 million students are educated by
these institutions. Most MSIs have taken on the responsibility for
educating students who traditionally have been denied access to
adequately funded K-12 schools, especially low-income, educationally
disadvantaged students. As institutions that play a major role in
educating the nation's emerging majority populations, HBCUs, HSIs, and
TCUs are integral to the country's potential and promise. Given that
these institutions educate the populations that are the fastest growing
in the nation, it is clear that MSIs must be recognized as a leading
voice for underrepresented populations.
I believe that several important steps could be taken to strengthen
the capacity of MSIs. One is to expand both the appropriation and
authorization levels of Titles III and V to ensure the continued
development and growth of MSIs. Additional funding is required for MSIs
to reach a level of financial stability that ensures the students
enrolled at these institutions receive the same quality academic
programs offered by majority institutions.
Congress also could take steps to encourage improvements in the
infrastructure and application of information technology at MSIs. The
digital divide between better-funded and endowed majority universities
and MSIs has impeded MSIs' ability to deliver state-of-the-art programs
in information technology-related areas. The Minority-Serving
Institutions Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act represents
an enormous opportunity in this area. The legislation addresses an
array of needs at MSIs by providing for both equipment and training, as
well as allowing MSIs that are more advanced in their use of technology
to partner with and mentor their peers. Moreover, the bill addresses
systemic disenfranchisement by providing a means for partnership
between MSIs and K-12 schools.
Investment in programs such as the Model Institutions for
Excellence (or MIE) program, a ten-year NSF- and NASA-supported
initiative that provided significant support to just six MSIs, can
serve as a model for much more significant investment. The MIE schools
concentrate on the recruitment and retention of students in the STEM
fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), counseling,
academic enrichment, encouraging students to attend graduate school,
and enhancing the education of their students. The results achieved by
these six MIE schools has been impressive and could be replicated at
other minority-serving institutions, and indeed at non-MSIs, in a way
that could substantially improve our nation's capacity in these
critical areas.
Fourth, we must engage the private sector in this campaign to help
students go to college, and to tell the story about the payoff of
investing in higher education, as complements-not substitutes-for the
critical support provided at the federal level. When Secretary of
Education Spellings met with college presidents, government officials,
and business leaders last year as a prelude to the establishment of the
Commission on the Future of Higher Education, the discussion focused on
improving higher education's capacity to enhance the nation's workforce
and global competitiveness. Well, one way that the nation clearly does
this is by helping students-the nation's future workforce-through
financial aid. Last year, we released the first-ever national study on
the role of private scholarship aid in the overall financing equation,
called Private Scholarships Count, and found that private scholarships
are an important part of the college financing equation, for numerous
reasons.
Private aid is already a significant piece of the student aid pie.
We estimate that private aid totaled more than $3 billion in 2003-04,
or 7 percent of all college grants awarded. Seven percent of
undergraduates received private scholarships with an average value of
just under $2,000, 5 percent of graduate students received private
scholarships averaging just over $3,000, and 10 percent of professional
students-students in fields like medicine and law--received an average
of slightly more than $5,000 in private scholarship aid. So clearly,
private aid is not something trivial--more than $3 billion a year makes
private aid more than three times the size of the well-known federal
Perkins Student Loan Program, and about one half of the entire support
provided by all 50 states for student aid.
But perhaps equally as important as how much private aid exists is
what it is used for. We found that private scholarships often
complement the federal, state, institutional, and other aid that is
given. One way they do this is by targeting primarily middle income
students with support that improves their choice of institution. They
also are useful in targeting support for diverse groups of students-
ranging from foster children to students with unique academic talents
to students who are deeply involved with their communities.
I think the private sector's commitment and support for helping
students go to college should be better recognized and understood as a
valuable complement to federal aid, but never as a way of supplanting
the critical federal support. One specific way to do this is via the
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program, which
encourages state governments to provide state tax dollars to assist
students in their states to gain the critical benefits of postsecondary
education. This program could be enhanced to leverage a much greater
amount of aid for students if it were used to stimulate not just state
dollars for student aid, but significantly increased private sector aid
in each state as well. For example, in the state of Washington the
legislature has provided small challenge grants to communities to
encourage the creation of local scholarship fundraising chapters. As a
result over 100 new volunteer-supported, community-based scholarship
chapters are now raising money each year to help their local students
pursue college, university, or vocational education. The current LEAP
legislation could be modified to reward those states where significant
increases in student aid are produced by working in partnership with
local community-based scholarship providers. This idea dovetails nicely
with the important recommendations of ACSFA in its partnership proposal
that has been included in the Senate HEA reauthorization bill under
consideration at the Committee level.
It is important to emphasize, however, that private aid is not a
substitute for government investment in need-based financial aid.
Private aid plays an important role in meeting specific needs of middle
income students and special populations and plays a useful role in
supporting institutional choice. But it cannot ever replace what is the
essential federal role of equalizing opportunity for students with
financial need. The example set last year with the $12 billion in cuts
to federal student aid is a disturbing development at a time when
increasing access to higher education has clearly become a national
security and economic competitiveness priority. Pell Grants and other
federal need-based aid programs are the single most important and
consistent resource for students struggling to pay for college, and
should be the driving force behind any national conversation about
college access and affordability.
In these times of increasing concern about homeland security,
global competitiveness, and national economic growth, investing in what
we know works best-federal support for students who otherwise wouldn't
be able to go to college-is absolutely essential. Major investment in
Pell Grants, reduced interest on student loans, increased support for
TRIO programs and minority-serving institutions, and increased
encouragement of private sector investment in grant aid are key
strategies that can make a difference in the lives of today's most
marginalized and underserved students. That is, in my view, the best
way that the federal government can achieve the goals of prosperity,
security, and harmony for all Americans.
Thank you for this opportunity to be here. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Keller. I want to thank all of the witnesses for
their testimony, and I will begin by recognizing myself for 5
minutes. Let me start with Mr. Davis.
One of the major employers in my area in Orlando and a
hotel owner told me that the big benefit he sees from the
Family Friendly Employer Act is that, while the existing IRS
Tax Code allows him to put his employees through college and
allows him to write that off, it doesn't allow him to put their
children through and write that off. In fact, the janitors and
maids who work in his hotels, frankly, don't want to go to
college, but they have 17-year old kids in high school who very
much do, the next generation.
As someone who owns a construction company, have you seen a
similar experience in that and is that why you are involved in
helping put seven of your employees' kids through college?
Mr. Tom Davis. That is exactly the reason. Our employees,
you know, they don't want--they have already--they either had a
chance when they were young to go to college--none of our
employers have asked or have a desire that I know of to go to
college, but all of their children do, and it is very important
to them. And they--probably most of our field people, you know,
that we are helping make $35,000 a year, and they have five
kids and a house and a car note, and they just can't do it.
So--but it is the kids that need the money. It is not the
employees. I mean, we would pay for employees if they wanted to
go, but none of them have asked.
Chairman Keller. Well, thank you.
Mr. Jones, I am intrigued by your Super Sunday Initiative
when you went into, I guess, eight different churches and parts
of L.A., that a lot of times their young people don't go to
college and you let them know about the opportunities. One of
the things that struck me is I believe in the California system
it is only about 2,500 bucks a year for the tuition, and I
would imagine a lot of folks don't go to college or try to go
to college because they don't think they could afford it.
Is part of your outreach and your Super Sunday Initiative
to let people know what is out there and that it can be
afforded through various grants and opportunities like you
provide?
Mr. Jones. Yes, Mr. Keller. It is multi-phased, actually.
The myth is largely that education is outside the reach of low-
income families because of costs.
So, first of all, we want to be sure that families are
aware not only of the cost--and the fees for the State
university--you are correct--are about $2,500 a year. There are
still books and supplies, transportation, room and board, all
of the other expenses; and when you total that together we are
talking about a cost of attendance, on average, even for our
system, of around 12 to $13,000 a year.
Families need to know that financial aid is available, Pell
Grant is the foundation for that. The State of California has
Cal Grant Entitlement, one of the first in the Nation to have
an entitlement State grant program; and the California State
University trustees have dedicated $200 million for that. But
the key is the academic preparation as well. Students need to
know about college, not just financing but what does it take to
be eligible in terms of meeting the academic expectations.
Chairman Keller. Do you find that, meeting with those
20,000 people and passing out your 10,000 posters, that a lot
of folks didn't know what financial aid options were out there?
Mr. Jones. Oh, I can guarantee you they did not know. No
matter what we do, no matter what publicity, I think everybody
at the table will tell you that is engaged in this--and I have
been doing this for 37 years--no matter what efforts we make
there is still a misunderstanding, a mystique that surrounds
the cost and financing; and getting the message out of is
critical.
Chairman Keller. Mr. Salandy, sounds like the Posse program
is an excellent program, a great track record, 1,500 students
in college, 90 percent staying in school. I see that you have
various universities that partner up with you, including your
own alma mater, Vanderbilt. Tell me how that would work in
terms of--let's say someone has been selected as one of the
recipients of the 305 Posse slots and they want to go to
Vanderbilt. Do you meet with the financial aid people at
Vanderbilt to help them get a more attractive package or do you
all cut the check for the very expensive tuition at Vanderbilt?
How does that work?
Mr. Salandy. The interesting thing about the program, we
don't fund our students, and we don't give them a penny. It all
comes from the universities with whom we partner. So a student
who is nominated for a Posse scholarship and actually, I
suppose, gets into Vanderbilt, let's say, Vanderbilt funds that
student's entire tuition, that tuition portion of his or her
college experience.
Chairman Keller. That is as a result of a relationship you
have established with the folks at Vanderbilt?
Mr. Salandy. Right. So we have 24 partner institutions like
Vanderbilt who say, you know, these are students we think are,
you know, great kids, and we think they will be a huge benefit
to our campuses. There are also students that are very often
nontraditional that might be overlooked by traditional
recruitment processes. So that is where the value and the
benefit of working with Posse comes in.
Chairman Keller. OK, Mr. Merisotis--I am sorry. My time has
expired. I didn't get to my question to you. But let me
recognize the ranking member, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Davis for wishing
God's blessing upon us. We certainly need it individually and
collectively, and I deeply appreciate that.
It is great to see in the audience George Conant, who used
to serve on this committee, well-respected on both sides of the
aisle and now with the California State University system.
Welcome back, George.
Let me address a question to Mr. Merisotis. In your
testimony, you discuss both how increased access to college
would benefit our economy and how reduced interest rates would
increase that access. I know that from 1945 when in my side of
town in Flint, Michigan, the first people to go to college were
those who had a GI bill of rights. Because no one went to
college in the east side, but the GI Bill of rights really made
that available.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Miller and I have introduced a
bill which would cut the interest rates in half for subsidized
student and parent loans; and I think we can all agree this and
other programs would make college more affordable for many
students. But could you expand on how this would be available
investment in our economy, especially with the growth of the
global competition?
Mr. Merisotis. Well, the lower interest rates I think, Mr.
Kildee, are an excellent example of our investment in those
students, because we reduce the expenses that they will accrue
over time as well as what they will need to repay on their
loans afterwards.
The prospect of debt and indeed the real consequences of
student debt are enormous in today's society. They not only
influence whether or not students go to college. They influence
where they go to college, what happens when they are there, and
what choices they make after college, what kind of job to take,
where to live, what kind of lifestyle to lead.
So it is a very important investment I think for us as a
society because we are investing in our own collective well-
being. By that I mean that those individuals who get the
college education, those individuals who choose the jobs that
are most productive in our economy, are going to benefit all of
us as a society because of the fact that they attended college
and benefited from what is, frankly, a modest level of
Government subsidy.
Mr. Kildee. I can recall when my father and mother had five
children and they could pick one of their children to go to
college and, for some luck of the draw, I was the one. That is
a terrible choice for parents, but I felt my brothers and
sisters were at least or more intelligent than I, but they--my
father did not have the resources. So there is a role for
Government, and there is a role for business.
Mr. Merisotis. And you have seen the data that, in today's
terms, if we had a GI Bill, the GI benefit would be $10,000,
compared to the maximum Pell Grant of $4,050 today.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Jones, I have been very involved in the
TRIO and GEAR UP program for years and have seen then work very
effectively in my own State of Michigan. What would the effect
of the President's proposal be to terminate those programs and
how do you interface with the school districts in California on
those programs?
Mr. Jones. Well the TRIO program is very, very important to
California State University. With the five or six programs, we
are serving probably close to 10 to 15,000 students through the
TRIO program throughout the State. So many of the programs are
designed for low-income, first-generation of students that we
find any of the programs that are designed to help us reach out
to students to help them to prepare academically and to help
them to succeed once they reach the college, the California
State University, those programs are very critical to us; and
we would hope that there would be continued funding to support
those.
Mr. Kildee. Anyone have any comments on Mr. Merisotis and
on the TRIO programs?
Mr. Merisotis. The TRIO programs represent such an enormous
part of the potential investment, and it is not an investment
in needs-based financial aid. It is an investment in the
reality of the life of those students. Counseling, tutoring,
mentoring, that kind of support is absolutely essential in the
lives of many low-income and disadvantaged populations,
including first generation and disabled students; and those
programs, again at a fairly modest level of investment, provide
an extraordinary opportunity. I think the fact that a third of
all low-income college students enrolled today participated in
a Federal TRIO program has got to be one of our great Federal
accomplishments in education policy.
Mr. Kildee. What I have noticed in the TRIO program and
GEAR UP program in Michigan--and I get out and interface
between the colleges and the school systems--is that for some
of these young people it is the first time in their life it has
occurred that they could go to college. It is really an
outreach program. Very often, they never realized that they
could go to college; and this program really helps them realize
that possibility.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Keller. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Members on our side, I want you to know that we will
recognize you in order of appearance here today.
Next, Dr. Ehlers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to commend you, Mr. Davis, for what
you are doing. I think that is an ideal solution in many cases.
A few questions on that.
When you provide these scholarships for the students, you
pay the full cost, or do they have to get student loans in
addition?
Mr. Tom Davis. All of our children, the seven we have in
college currently, live with their parents and attend local
college there in the Houston area. So we pay all their tuition,
their books, lab fees, things like that. I mean, we don't pay
their living expenses, because they live with their parents,
but it is averaging about $5,000 per child per year.
Mr. Ehlers. And the child can pick whichever school they
want to go to?
Mr. Tom Davis. That is up to the child. I just want him to
go to college.
Mr. Ehlers. OK, and if someone picked Harvard?
Mr. Tom Davis. Well, we might have to talk about it, but--
--
Mr. Ehlers. That might break the bank even further.
Well, thank you very much for what you are doing. I think
that is outstanding.
Mr. Salandy, I hope I pronounce your name correctly. Again,
I didn't quite get the picture of how you used the Federal
funds that are available to you on this and how that correlates
with the work the Foundation is doing. Could you just summarize
that for me again please?
Mr. Salandy. Definitely. So we work with selective colleges
and universities, and they offer our students scholarships. But
they are able to afford the program and offer those
scholarships because they make up the difference of what
financial aid does not award those students.
So since we are working out of urban centers--we are based
in New York City, Boston, Chicago, L.A., and Washington, D.C--a
lot of our students tend to be high need. And we work in public
high school systems. So the colleges that we work with can only
afford the program and are only able to extend those
scholarships to those students because of what they receive in
financial aid. They make up that difference. Does that clarify
things a bit?
Mr. Ehlers. Do most of these students live at home, too, in
order to reduce costs?
Mr. Salandy. No, they are on campus. They are living on
campus, yes.
Mr. Ehlers. So your scholarship program doesn't cover any
of the living expenses, does it?
Mr. Salandy. No, it does not. No, it does not.
Mr. Ehlers. Also, I want to point out someone--I forgot
which witness--mentioned the Pell Grants have not been
increased. I have here a graph which shows they are increased.
There are double what they were 20 years ago. I don't know what
the rate of inflation is. I suspect this hasn't matched the
increase in tuition. But it certainly has more than matched the
CPIs, so far as I know. I don't think that has doubled in the
past 20 years.
Mr. Merisotis. The total funding for Pell Grants has
increased, but, as the chairman pointed out, there has been a
significant number of increase in the number of students who
received Pell Grants. The chart that was shown here previously,
on the boards here, showed a 36 percent increase in the number
of recipients since 2000. Only about 11 percent of that is
accounted for by increasing enrollment. The rest really is
because of increasing eligibility. That is, as a so-called
quasi-entitlement, we have more people eligible for it. So for
all of the people who are eligible, they are eligible to
receive up to the maximum benefit. That is one of the reasons
why the maximum Pell Grant hasn't been raised since 2000, is
that we have more people who qualify. So there is increasing
support for Pell Grants, and that is a good thing. But a lot of
it has to do with the fact that we have seeing an increased
number of recipients because of the growing eligibility.
Mr. Ehlers. My points simply is we have increased the
maximum award amount considerably, particularly in the last 10
years. It has almost doubled just in the last 10 years. So I am
not very pleased with that. I am not bragging about it. I just
want to set the record straight that we have put a substantial
amount of money in that.
I am just very pleased with what I heard about the
different programs. I think this is--in view of the rapidly
increasing costs in higher education, there has to be
additional financial aid; and I am pleased that many
businesses, organizations are increasing their scholarship aid.
That is certainly a plus.
We do our part through the Pell Grant, through the student
loan programs, which also are very expensive, but we need the
private sector to dig in. I appreciate in each and every case
your involvement as well, so thank you; and I yield back.
Chairman Keller. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.
Next, Mr. Holt is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Merisotis, what can you say about the demographics of
higher education? What will be the need for aid in the future?
And, any of you, what can you say about the trends in the
share of student aid that comes from the Federal Government? It
is now approaching two-thirds, counting loans and all of that.
I am just wondering under what circumstances you think that
might decrease or increase and whether there is a greater need
for the institutions, the colleges themselves or private
corporations or others to pick up the change.
Mr. Merisotis. There is a famous saying, ``demographics is
destiny;'' and our destiny is pretty clear in this point. That
is that by far the fastest-growing populations in our country
in the next several decades will be African Americans, Asian
Americans and, of course, Hispanics, the demographic juggernaut
in our society. Those three communities have significant
educational needs and lower average family incomes,
particularly in our urban areas and some of our poor
communities.
So we look at the demographics of the population where a
significant proportion of the eligible population for higher
education is going to be from communities that are currently
underserved, and clearly our Federal investment needs to be
increased. The question is, how do we do that?
I do believe in a partnership. I think the Federal
Government has and is in the best position to serve as the
coordinating partner in this partnership, because the Federal
Government has, naturally, a national focus. But I think States
have responsibility, families have responsibility, institutions
have responsibility, and, yes, indeed, the private sector has
responsibility. But the Federal Government has got to drive
this train here, because the Federal Government is by far in
the best position to impact the lives of these students that
are going to impact our collective well-being.
Mr. Holt. Any of the others of you care to comment on that,
on this point, and kind of what--how is the pie being reshaped
and re divided?
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Financial aid has grown considerably, but it has been
through the Federal Treasury, largely. For the California State
University, of our total financial aid, $7 billion, 72 percent
is Federal financial aid; and, of that, really 50 percent
really is the Federal student loans. We are lucky in that the
cost of attendance is one of the lowest in the country for a
public university, so the average indebtedness of our students
is a little under $14,000 for a bachelor's degree.
But keying off what Jamie said, one of the things that
concerns us is the academic preparation of students. In
California, the academic preparation and eligibility for the
California State University--and I should say we are charged to
admit the upper one-third of the graduating senior class which
a B average or better. The eligibility of African Americans in
our State is in the single digits in percentages. It is about 6
to 7 percent. Latinos, which make up far over half the
population of the State, only about 26 percent of those
students graduating from high school meet eligibility
requirements for admission to CSU. And we don't even begin to
talk about the dropout rates in 8, 9 and 10 grades in the State
of California and nationally.
Financial aid is a critical key point to this whole area of
higher education. But academic preparation in K-12 is an area
that we haven't spent a great deal of time and attention to and
one I think we need to.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Salandy, first of all, I applaud you and your
member organizations and your supporters for putting together
what is a creative program and evidently quite a successful
one. I am particularly pleased to see that the college that I
am proud to have attended, Carlton College, is one of your
participating organizations or participating colleges.
I am wondering about the 10 percent of your students who
don't graduate. You--you have said a little bit, but I want to
understand better whether that that is a necessary 10 percent
or whether there is something that might have been done,
particularly since we're talking about financial aid, in the
financial realm that would have made the outcome different for
that 10 percent.
Mr. Salandy. Yeah. I think that, first of all, the number
of students that make up that 10 percent drop out for, you
know, reasons that are pretty typical in the general population
of why students drop out. Some of them change majors and ideas
of what they want to become. But, also, you can't get away from
the fact that the more financial dollars and the more support
we can get at that level, we are able to serve more and more
students.
What we found is that--that, you know, the whole debate
over equity versus excellence in trying to find those students
who are actually capable of taking advantage of a prestigious
or quality education, we found them, and we found them using
unique indicators. But, yeah, the financial burden on some of
them, some of them are--you know, they have issues related to,
you know, back home, whether or not they are helping to support
family members back home, and how much support they can get
from family members back home in order to fill that gap of for
room and board and issues like that.
So, yeah, we do get quite a bit of that, of the financial
reasons being behind the 10 percent that do drop out, but----
Chairman Keller. Thank you, Mr. Holt.
Next we recognize Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing, and thank you for the exemplary way in
which you are conducting your first hearing.
Just a couple of comments.
I was interested in the comment that roughly 75 percent of
high-income students go to college, and roughly 30 percent of
low-income student attend college. I guess for my own
observation, that would probably be fairly accurate. I am sure
it is accurate. And one thing that seems to occur to me is that
sometimes vision is really important, and whether you go to
school or not, and if you are raised in an environment where
you don't see many people around you or come into contact with
many people who have gone to college, you are probably not
going to think about it much. On the other hand, if you come
from a home where this is kind of expected, you are very apt to
go.
And so one thing that I have noticed is that you have been
very interested in mentoring, and a young person who is in a
mentoring relationship is much more apt to have their horizons
broadened somewhat by that mentor. Some possibilities are often
broached that otherwise might not be considered by the young
person. So I think that is a good idea.
The question I would like to ask you all is probably a
little bit outside your area of expertise, but we have already
pointed out that there has been a fairly dramatic increase in
funding, but the actual grant itself is not increased because
of the expanding numbers who are receiving Pell grants, and we
all understand that.
One of the variables that is really distressing is that--
the rate at which the cost of higher education is increasing.
It is about 8 percent a year, which is far outstripping
inflation. And so we have more and more pressure being put on
people here in Congress and the Federal Government to fund
education. And have you given any thought or do you have any
ideas as to how we might control the cost of higher education,
because if that--if that cost continues to expand as it is, it
might be very, very difficult, no matter what we do, to make
the college education affordable to so many low-income
students.
So I don't know if this is something you have thought about
much, but we think about it a lot, and every time we try to
make a proposal, it gets beaten down very quickly by the powers
that be. And so any thoughts that you might have as to how to
make college more affordable other than simply more Federal
money?
Mr. Merisotis. As I know you are aware, there is a
disconnect here. The vast majority of the Federal investment is
in financial aid. Financial aid goes to students. The problem
is we are concerned about rising prices charged by
institutions. The only mallet we have to try to address those
issues, therefore, is financial aid. But if we use that mallet,
we negatively impact students, and I don't think that is what
anybody wants to do.
One proposal that I have made previously is a very modest
proposal to put some competitive money on the table for
institutions to develop innovative solutions for cost control.
Institutions love to compete for money, and a modest amount of
expenditure could actually generate some really interesting
ideas that you just don't see.
Another possibility is to create incentives for States to
also encourage those kind of efforts in public institutions,
though it clearly won't address issues in the private sector.
Unfortunately we live with a situation where, because of
the way the programs are structured, we would end up negatively
impacting students if we try to limit availability of financial
aid, and that is where the vast majority of the resources are.
So I really hope that this Congress won't choose those kinds of
solutions. But modest, and I do mean modest, incentive money,
competitive money, for institutions might actually lead
institutions to think outside of the box and develop some new
ideas.
Mr. Osborne. So often what seems to me as we increase
Federal aid, this simply gets capitalized into the increasing
cost of education. And so your thought is well taken. There may
be some way that we can, by putting some money on the table to
be innovative and holding down the costs, might be helpful,
might be a good thought.
Anybody else have any thought on this issue?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Tom Davis. Well, I have noticed one of the students we
paid for goes to junior college. Tuition there is $750 a
semester for 15 hours. Another student goes to a State college
there in Texas. Tuition for 15 hours for a semester is about
$2,700, you know. And so if both of them are accredited
schools, and you see such a vast range in the cost of an
education, and so, you know, maybe you take in the--I have no
idea why universities' cost is increasing so rapidly, but maybe
from a Federal level you start pushing more of these kids
toward junior colleges and stuff to get them started their
first 2 years instead of sending those moneys to the more
expensive colleges. I don't know. It is a thought.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I think my time is up, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman, but appreciate you all being here.
Chairman Keller. Thank you, Mr. Osborne.
Next, Mr. Wu, you are recognized.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
see you there.
I know that we are here to talk about employer-based
private programs, but I want to broaden our horizons just a
little bit.
Mr. Merisotis, I was struck by a comment you made earlier
in your testimony that tax incentives--that there is no
evidence that tax incentives increase the number of lower-
income students who can attend. And I was just thinking very
quickly to the analogy in the housing market where there is a
mortgage interest tax deduction. It has helped a lot with
middle-income of housing affordability, and there is, you know,
that kind of getting a piece of the rock kind of--well, a broad
public policy about housing. The middle class basically has
access to two appreciating assets, and housing is one, and
education is the other. And for housing we have these other
things that we consider to help with low-income housing.
And the question I had for you is if we were to help one
group of people, whether it is employment-based or individually
based, by permitting the deduction, the full deduction, of
student loan interest, and then work on some kind of concept of
something based on refundable tax credits like we had for the
low-income refundable tax credit, would that help address what
you said about the lack of breadth of a straightforward tax
deduction?
Mr. Merisotis. I am not sure. I think the fundamental
problem with tax policy in this area always has been that tax
benefits are awarded, take place, after the action has already
occurred. That is, you are getting the tax benefit after you
have done what you otherwise would have done. So there is not a
lot of incentive there. I don't know a lot of people who make
decisions, at least in this area of education. It may be true
in your example with mortgages, but I don't know anybody who--
--
Mr. Wu. I never would have purchased a house if I wasn't
forced to by the Tax Code.
Mr. Merisotis. So it seems unlikely that someone is going
to say, I think I will go to college because I am going to get
a deduction on my student loan interest in the following year.
It doesn't seem very likely to me, and we see from the HOPE and
Lifetime Learning Tax Credits that only about a quarter of the
recipients of those have incomes below $30,000. An awful lot of
eligible populations, by the way, for those programs actually
don't take advantage of the tax benefits, which is another
problem, getting back to Mr. Jones, about the lack of
information being one of our other critical barriers.
Mr. Wu. And that is a separate issue of getting the
information out there.
One of the things we do is student financial aid for
universities, and that is one of the most well-attended things
we do congressionally.
I just want to ask whoever would like to answer this on the
panel, we have looked at the whole pie chart of where student
financial aid--the various sources of student financial aid,
and one of those sources is institutional financial aid from
the college or university. Where does that money come from? Is
that from endowment funds? Is that from other restricted funds?
Are there transfer payments from the nominal tuition rate? Can
anybody address that?
Mr. Jones. Speaking for the California State University and
the State of California, there is another partner in this, and
that is the State itself. And the State of California has an
implement through the general fund. It just comes through the
tax--the general revenue to the State to fund student financial
aid and make access possible. But from the State university
standpoint, it is a policy of our chancellor and our board of
trustees. We provide over $200 million in another grant
program, which augments the Pell grant and the State grant
program for students, and that, again, is--a fraction of that
was paid by State general funds, but I must tell you most of it
comes from the fees that students pay.
Our students have agreed that about one-third of the fees
that they paid should be returned to aid and provided to other
students with financial need. So as we increase our fees, one-
third goes right back into our State grant or the California
State University grant program, and the fee increases and so
forth occur somewhat regularly, but they are limited to about
10 percent per year.
Mr. Wu. So even at a California State university, a
substantial amount of that institutional aid comes from other
students, and one would assume that at private colleges,
universities, that might be even higher. It comes from either
students or endowment funds.
Mr. Jones. Yes. Having worked at a prior institution in my
early part of my career for about 15 years, that is where your
endowment funds and your contributions come in.
But I would say in California our State grant program
students can use that grant. It is very much like a Pell grant
in the sense it is an entitlement. The value is worth the
amount of fees at the California State university, or the
amount of fees at the University of California, and up to about
10- to $11,000 of the independent colleges. So the State
general fund is supporting students to go to independent
colleges as well.
Mr. Wu. I thank the witnesses for your good work, and thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Keller. Thank you, Mr. Wu.
Ms. Drake is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
What a great idea of a bill to encourage our businesses to
partner with us, with the government, to make sure our children
have opportunities.
Mr. Davis, I am really intrigued by what you have done, and
I want to thank you for doing that, and it sounds like this is
something that your company just said that is an opportunity we
had, even though you chose not to take it, and we want to make
it available; and I think what you have done--and you have
heard in here, the three big things I think that keep children
from going to college: No. 1, they don't believe they can
afford it; No. 2, they don't know that they can do it. It is
not on their radar screen if their parents didn't go, and we
talked about it, and the percentages of income, higher income,
certainly a much clearer percentage go; and then the third
thing is the academic achievement.
But what you have done is said if you want to go to
college, I have the money. So No. 1, they are going to be more
concerned about academic achievement; and No. 2, they know they
can do it.
So I have just a couple questions for you on that. Is there
also a support mechanism within your business for that child or
for that parent if that parent knows now they have the money,
but how do they do it? Are there also people that help them
work through that, or is that done through the child's school
when--because they know they have the funding to go?
Mr. Tom Davis. I am not sure I totally understand the
question, but we--for one, most of our employees are Hispanic,
and their parents did not--or our employees did not have the
ability to go to college. Most of them didn't even finish high
school, and so their kids--we are a small enough company that I
know every child whose parents work for us, and I make a point
to make them understand that they can go to college, and that
it is a possibility. And even if their high school grades
aren't good, I even go help them at high school, you know, to
get them out of high school. And it is a struggle.
Mrs. Drake. So you do that at the high school level as well
as monitoring their college grades.
Mr. Tom Davis. Yes. And one of the side effects of this
whole program has been company morale. Our employees, they
literally walk through fire for us. They--nobody is--we hadn't
had anybody resign from our company or move on in 15 years, I
mean, because we take good care of them, and they, in turn,
take good care of us.
Mrs. Drake. And the final question for you, because we are
going to go vote, is, first of all, if a child wanted to be
more in a career training, whether it is automotives or
refinery people or--do you also help them with funding for that
if it is not just regular college, if it is more workforce?
Mr. Tom Davis. I don't care what the child wants, what form
of education they want to get, you know, whether it is college
or trade or, you know, we will help them.
Mrs. Drake. And have you shared what you are doing with
your business community there in the Houston area so they know
the model that your company has put together, or are you not
patting yourself on the back?
Mr. Tom Davis. No. It is really through word of mouth; but,
no, we don't advertise it.
Mrs. Drake. Right. But as far as your fellow builders or
other people within the business community, to let them know
this is a program that works very well for you.
Mr. Tom Davis. I share with them at lunch or something like
that, but it is not a public thing.
Mrs. Drake. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
yield back so maybe you can have a couple other questions
before we go.
Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Thank you all for being here.
Chairman Keller. Well, thank you. I know in just a second
Mr. Kildee is going to insert something into the record. Let me
tell the witnesses and Members we have been called for votes.
We have 15 minutes to be there. We are probably going to have
time for about 5 minutes more of questions, and then we are
going to adjourn because we will be there for about 40 minutes,
and then it is going to be lunch, and I know some of you have
flights to catch.
Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
include in the record the comments from Sandy Baum of the
College Board.
Chairman Keller. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Sandy Baum follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandy Baum, the College Board
Both tuition assistance from employers and private grant aid play
an important role in student financing. In 2004-05, the $8.4 billion in
subsidies from these sources constituted about 15 percent of the total
$57 billion in grant aid undergraduate and graduate students used to
help defray the costs of higher education. However, this source of
funding is most important for graduate students. Less than $4 billion,
or only about 8 percent of undergraduate grant aid, comes from either
employer assistance or private grants.
Grant aid from private sources is very valuable to the students who
receive it, but it is not need-based assistance and low-income students
are less likely than more affluent students to receive this form of
aid. Black and Hispanic students are less likely than white students to
get help from these sources.
About 8 percent of undergraduate students receive employer
assistance, but only 4 percent of dependent undergraduates enjoy this
benefit, compared to 13 percent of independent undergraduates. Among
independent students, those in the highest income quartile are about 4
times as likely as those in the lowest income quartile to receive
employer assistance. This is not surprising, since individuals working
more hours and in the labor force for a longer time are most likely to
enjoy this benefit.
Among dependent undergraduates, about 5 percent of those from
families with incomes $70,000 or higher receive subsidies from their
parents' employers, but fewer than 3 percent of those from families
with incomes below $30,000 receive this funding. This reality is
consistent with the general pattern of more generous employee benefits
for higher-earning employees
While private organizations such as Scholarship America do make
important contributions to needy students, much private grant aid is
distributed according to criteria other than financial need. Only 8
percent of dependent students from families with incomes below $30,000
receive private grants, compared to 10 percent of dependent
undergraduates overall.
Grant aid from private sources makes a significant contribution to
students. The federal government might be well-advised to explore ways
of encouraging increased participation of employers and other private
entities in financing college and in particular, of targeting the
subsidies to students with significant financial need. Federal matching
funds could certainly be an effective means of accomplishing this goal.
There is, however, no substitute for federal grants to low-income
undergraduates. Assistance from private sources will never provide more
than a small but helpful supplement to the public funding on which low-
and moderate-income students rely. Without continued increases in
federal grant funding, the gap in college enrollment between students
from families in the lower half of the income distribution and those
from more affluent families will not close.
______
Chairman Keller. And now Mr. Ryan is recognized.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to lend
my voice to your great hearing that we are having here and how
important this is. I think this is really the most important
discussion that we need to have, and we are competing against
1.3 billion Chinese citizens, over a billion citizens in India,
and we only have 300 million citizens in this country. So I
think it makes it that much more imperative that we get all of
our kids on the field playing for us. We can't afford to have,
you know, the poverty rates we have in some of the other
schools and the drop-out rates we have, as some of you have
already mentioned.
I want to take this opportunity, too, Mr. Davis, to thank
you. I can't stress how important it is to have the leadership
in the private sector on these issues. We hear a lot from
businesses on how important it is to have an educated
workforce, and I see your commitment not only in education, but
a lot of other community things that are going on down in your
community; and I want to thank you for being a leader in your
community and how important it is.
I have one question. I really don't even know who to ask it
to. But one of the ideas that I have read about, and the idea,
the concept, was mentioned here earlier, about kids and
parents, especially poor kids and lower-middle-class kids, they
don't even think education is an option for them. They don't
know how much they qualify for the Pell grant or what is
available.
One of the ideas I read about last week that I think we
need to maybe massage and kick around here because I think it
could be a good bipartisan issue is to have a form sent to
families based on their previous year's IRS forms that they
filled out on what their income is. And if they have kids that
are 14, 15, 16, 17, getting ready to go to college, they merely
get an envelope that says, your kid John, who is 15, would
qualify in your State of Ohio, for example, for $5,000 in Pell
grant or $4,000 in Pell grant, and would be eligible for $1,500
in loans and, therefore, could graduate from the Ohio State
University in 4 years with, you know, $20,000 of it covered,
whatever the numbers may be.
Do you think that would be an effective use of our time,
energy, and resources here from the government? Would that have
the kind of impact that you are talking about here for not that
much of a cost? And you are all welcome to comment.
Mr. Jones. Any way we can effectively find to communicate--
I am trying to find the calculation in my mind, the cost to
doing something of that nature. I know States need to do a
better job. California does a very good job in trying to
communicate very early to families at those age levels about
that very thing, the Cal grant entitlement, Pell grant, and so
forth. And let us not forget Gear Up, which is another very
important program which we are very actively engaged in. That
is reaching out to more families at an earlier age, and what it
is doing is helping them to prepare academically.
Our problem is not just cost, and I can't just emphasize
this enough. It is the academic preparation and reaching a 14-
or 15-year-old at that point who has not taken the requisite
courses in elementary or middle school necessary to be
successful, and taking English as early as eighth or ninth
grade or algebra, is not going to be as successful as early on
as we would like.
So there is a combination. I applaud the thought, and I
think we do need to brainstorm on ways of communicating the
message, because I think you have hit on a key point in at
least my 37 years. We do everything we can.
Our Super Sunday, quite frankly, when a chancellor stands
up on the pulpit and addresses a congregation in the church,
and our presidents are there after the sermon and has time to
address, that was getting out the message. We are doing it in
the Bay area. We are doing it throughout the State with all
underrepresented groups of students. And we just started with
the African American because of the lowest college-going rate.
But I go applaud that effort, and I think we should think about
it.
Mr. Salandy. I think also, in addition to the issue of
academic preparedness, what we found is that the Posse
Foundation--is that there are thousands of students out there
that can succeed and that can do well, but are not being served
because of financial limitations. And what we have done as an
organization, how we get the word out is by reaching out to
community-based organizations, and establishing relationships
with public high school systems, and talking to counselors and
principals so that they, in turn, disseminate that information
about the availability of quality education to their students.
And I think--I don't know how that might be applied more
broadly, but----
Chairman Keller. Thank you. Time is about expired. I know
we have got two gentlemen who have been waiting.
Dr. Price, if you can get off your best question, then I
will go to Mr. Bishop real quick.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you
for this hearing, and I want to thank you all for coming.
I can sit here all day and talk about this, because I agree
with others, it is probably the most important thing we could
discuss. It allows that pursuit of happiness to occur for all
of our citizens.
I come from Georgia, the Sixth District of Georgia. Twelve,
thirteen years ago we adopted the HOPE Scholarship program
there, which I think is the first State that has truly
sequestered money from their lottery program and utilized it to
fund tuition for all students, any students who go to a State
school or private school and maintain a B average. It has been
incredibly successful in keeping high-quality students in
Georgia. It has also been successful in allowing individuals in
a very public way--in providing them the incentive to say, if I
can keep my academic scholarships up, I will be able to go to
college.
If you, in your wildest dreams or in your most creative
mindset, could think about how we could provide that kind of
vision for young people all across this Nation, do you have any
thoughts that you haven't shared with us today or that you--or
that you haven't written down somewhere that if we could just
do this thing, it would be a wonderful, wonderful opportunity
for all students across our Nation?
Mr. Merisotis. A decade ago I was executive director of
this bipartisan commission. One of the major recommendations
was to create a uniform level of support available to all
students irrespective of their financial situation; that is,
that if you come from a higher-income family, you would be
eligible for X thousands of dollars primarily in loans, and if
you come from a very low-income family, you would be eligible
for the same amount of money primarily in grants.
The point is we can send a message, much of what you are
talking about with the HOPE Scholarship in Georgia, to all
students in this country, the Federal Government is going to
make a specific commitment irrespective of their status; and I
still think it is a very big idea that could have huge
consequences for us as a country and should be one that would
achieve bipartisan support.
And I would be glad share with the subcommittee more of the
information from that commission.
Mr. Price. That would be great.
Anybody else?
Mr. Salandy. I would love to see--when I dream, I dream of
recruitment processes that do not place the kind of emphasis
that is now being placed on SAT scores and standardized
testing, and I think that is a huge obstacle for students, the
overreliance on those sorts of indicators of academic aptitude.
I think that is a huge obstacle for students who might not
perform well on those tests, but nonetheless, given the right
kind of support, can be stars on campus.
So in my--when I think of big, and I dream big, I dream of
other measures, and perhaps also standardized, of course, but
implemented on a large scale that don't simply test for the
things that the current standardized tests test for.
Chairman Keller. Mr. Salandy, I hate to cut you off. We
will be happy to chat with you right after this.
Dr. Price, if it is all right, let me yield for one
question for Mr. Bishop. He has been waiting.
Mr. Bishop. I have lots of questions, but I will ask one. I
will ask it of Mr. Jones.
In your testimony you talked about the importance of
increasing funding for the Pell grant, increasing the Pell
grant maximum, increasing funding for campus-based aid,
restoring Perkins, which, as you know, the President's budget
recommends that we eliminate.
Quickly, we have passed--some of us disagreed--now a merit-
based component to Pell. Do you believe that a merit-based
component to Pell is a best limited resource, or will we be
taking those resources and putting them toward either
increasing campus-based funds or increasing the Pell grant
maximum?
Mr. Jones. It is too early to tell yet, particularly in the
first year, first and second year awards, because we don't know
what the academic criteria will be. We know many of our CSU
students will benefit from that. And the third and fourth year
competitive grants, the Smart grants, are intended to address
the workforce need that the Nation has identified, as well as
the State of California, to encourage students to go in science
and math and technology.
I think always the California State universities', and
certainly California joins with others, the greatest need is
the need-based financial aid. But many of those students, by
attaching it to the Pell grant, are, in fact, your neediest
students. Ideally what we will do with the additional grants is
reduce the student loan indebtedness. It would certainly in the
CSU. I can't guarantee how it will be played out in other
institutions, how they may, in fact, replace their
institutional grant with another Federal grant and keep the----
Mr. Bishop. That is my concern.
My other concern is I come at this from a perspective of an
ex-financial aid director, and my perspective would have been
to add it to the campus basing, but let the financial aid
officer use his or her discretion to assist the students who
are in the greatest of need.
Thank you for your answer.
Chairman Keller. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
If anyone has any additional questions or additional
responses, you can submit it to us, and we will certainly put
it in on the record.
I want to thank the witnesses for their important and
invaluable time, and for Members for their participation.
If there are no further questions, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material from Mr. Jones follows:]
Supplemental Presentation by Allison G. Jones, Assistant Vice
Chancellor, California State University System
early assessment program
Goal of the CSU Board of Trustees
Reduce the need for remediation in English and mathematics to 10%
by 2007
Percentage of First-Time Freshmen Entering with College Level
Mathematics Proficiency
Percentage of First-Time Freshmen Entering with College Level English
Proficiency
Collaboration
California State Board of Education
California Department of Education
California State University
Purposes of Early Assessment Program (EAP)
Early warning
- Identify students before their senior year who need to do
additional work in English and/or mathematics before entering
the CSU
Identify student readiness
- Inform students, families, and high schools of students'
readiness for college-level work in English and mathematics
12th grade interventions
- Motivate students to take needed steps in 12th grade to assure
readiness
EAP Development Principles
Identify and develop common expectations of college
readiness standards
Align collegiate readiness expectations with K-12
standards and assessments
Assess college readiness standards
Minimize additional tests or testing time
Identify assessments appropriate to student academic
preparation
- 11th grade California Standards Test
Provide feedback to students, families, and schools in
time to focus additional academic preparation in 12th grade
Cost-effectiveness
- Reduce students' need for remediation
- Improve path to the baccalaureate degree
Components of EAP
11th grade testing (early assessment of college readiness)
Supplemental high school preparation in 12th grade
Teacher professional development
Why should eleventh grade students participate in the EAP?
Earn an exemption from CSU-required English and/or
mathematics placement tests
Identify the need for additional preparation for college-
level courses while in high school
Adjust senior-year coursework to prepare for college-level
courses
Avoid investing time and money in college remediation
courses that do not count toward a baccalaureate degree
Early Assessment of Readiness for College
Voluntary examination
Administered in 11th grade
In conjunction with California Standards Test
In English and mathematics
Contains 15 additional multiple-choice items in both
subjects
Essay required in English
Selected items from CST and additional EAP items
(including essay in English) are scored to determine student readiness
for college English and/or mathematics
What is Assessed in Math
CSU questions on CST are from State Board Standards
- However, CSU does not cover Proof, Trig Functions, Probability,
and Logarithms
Important topics that need to be learned but not essential
skills for success in GE math
Purpose: measure depth, not breadth of content knowledge
- Depth important because CSU grants exemptions
What is Assessed in English
CSU questions on CST are from State Board Standards
Reading: comprehension
Reading: literary response
Writing strategies
Written essay: student explains author's argument and
extent to which student agrees with author's analysis and conclusion
Early Assessment of Readiness for College
English
- College Ready (Exempt)
- Not College Ready (Non-exempt)
Mathematics
- College Ready (Exempt and Conditionally Exempt)
- Not College Ready (Non-exempt)
What Do Results Mean?
College Ready (Exempt)
Student demonstrates readiness for college level
coursework in English Language Arts and/or mathematics and is exempt
from further CSU testing.
College Ready (Conditionally Exempt)
Student demonstrates readiness for college level
coursework in mathematics at that point in time,; However, successful
completion of a senior year math experience is required to retain the
exemption.
Not College Ready (Non-Exempt)
Student does not demonstrate readiness for college level
coursework in English Language Arts and/or mathematics and is
encouraged to participate in a senior year experience in either or both
areas.
Incomplete
Student did not complete a sufficient amount of one or
both exams to render a designation.
Not College Ready (Non-Exempt)
Students, once admitted, must take appropriate placement
test to determine if they will enter regular or remedial coursework
- English Placement Test (EPT)
- Entry Level Mathematics Exam (ELM)
Exemptions may be gained through other means, such as AP,
SAT, ACT, IB, etc.
College Ready: Conditionally Exempt in Mathematics
Students will be required to do further work to maintain
their skills in mathematics to retain exemption.
- Another math class with Algebra II as a prerequisite
- Monitored, online mathematics e-learning program, such as ALEKS
How CSU supports high schools and students to gain proficiency in
English
CSU English Success Website
Twelfth Grade Expository Reading and Writing Course
- Aligned with English-Language Arts Content Standards
- Helps prepare students for college-level English
Teacher Professional Development
CSU English Success Website
Customized information for students, teachers, and
counselors
Checklists and guidance tips for parents (English and
Spanish)
Personalized roadmaps with step-by-step advise and e-mail
reminders
Advice on EPT requirements
Online English resources for students, parents,
counselors, and teachers
- CSU Focus on English
CSU English Success Website
Tips and tools to help students improve their critical
reading and writing skills
Online multiple-choice module offering two practice EPT
exams
- Students receive a score report with detailed feedback about
their responses
Diagnostic Writing Service (DWS)
Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), an online essay-writing tool
Testimonials
www.csuenglishsuccess.org
English for Success Home Page
12th Grade Expository Reading and Writing Course
Developed by CSU English faculty and high school teachers
Aligned with ELA content standards for 11th and 12th
grades
Structured around assignment template addressing reading
and writing
Lessons based on non-fiction and fiction texts
Engages students in a study of rhetoric and composition
Enables students to read and write academic prose
effectively and strategically
12th Grade Expository Reading and Writing Course
Increases students' mastery of academic language
Emphasizes in-depth study of expository, analytical, and
argumentative writing
Deepens students' critical reading, writing, and thinking
skills
Designed to fulfill the B requirement of the A-G subject
area requirements
Not intended as an honors or remedial course
Full course or modules
Preliminary Evaluation of 12th Grade Expository Reading and Writing
Course
Study Design
Effect of course on students who experienced two modules
with student in traditional courses
Extent to which instructional context related to increased
proficiency students in course
Administration of EPT to 12th graders enrolled in course
using modules and enrolled in traditional course
Observations and interviews with teachers and students in
10 classrooms, teacher survey responses (N=214)
Preliminary Evaluation of 12th Grade Expository Reading and Writing
Course
Effect on Teachers
Experienced strong success with curricular materials
Found material academically rigorous and engaging
Systemic changes in teaching
Observed that * * *
- Depth, rigor, and intensity contributed to strong, positive
outcomes for students
- College expectations increased
- Students experienced increased confidence as writers and readers
- Worked well for English language learners
Preliminary Evaluation of 12th Grade Expository Reading and Writing
Course
Effect on Students
Increased skills in reading comprehension, expository
writing, and independent thinking
- Analyzed text material more thoroughly
- Reexamined ideas in text
- Read text with different/multiple purposes
- Evaluated and analyzed strength of writers' arguments
- Read more, including more complex texts by choice
- Applied skills learned with expository texts with traditional
English language arts texts
Students enrolled in course using modules scored higher on
EPT than students in traditional classes
Professional Development in English
Offered by County Offices of Education and the CSU to high
school English teachers Introduces teachers to expectations of college-
level English
Emphasizes teaching expository text and rhetorical
analysis
Professional Development in English
Provides teachers with skills necessary to teach the 12th
Grade Expository Reading and Writing Course
Reading Institutes for Academic Preparation offered
through selected CSU campuses for teachers in grades 9-12 in all
subject areas to improve capacity to teach reading/academic literacy
across the curriculum
How CSU supports high schools and students to gain proficiency in Math
CSU Math Success Website
Twelfth Grade Math Course (under development)
Teacher Professional Development
CSU Math Success Website
Advise students how to meet ELM and EPT requirements
Motivate students to take proactive steps to satisfy ELM
and EPT
Provide educational tools and planning resources to help
students improve their math skills
CSU Math Success Website
Diagnostic services (MDTP)
Online math resources for students, parents, counselors,
and teachers
- CSU Focus on Mathematics
Online e-learning mathematics tutorial (ALEKS)
Live online math tutoring
10-, 50-, 114- online ELM practice problems
Roadmap advises students how to prepare math skills
Video Testimonials
www.csumathsuccess.org
Math for Success Roadmap
12th Grade Course in Mathematics
Design of new 12th grade course
- Under development
- Will emphasize math skills needed for college readiness in
mathematics
Professional Development in Mathematics
Increase teacher's knowledge and understanding of EAP
program
Examine student performance on ELM to identify and analyze
patterns of student strengths and weaknesses
Increase teacher's knowledge and understanding of options
that exist to increase and sustain student math skills
Agreement with Curriculum and Instruction Steering
Committee (CISC) of California County Superintendents Educational
Services Association (CCSESA) to deliver professional development to
high school mathematics teachers
Just for the Kids
User-friendly website provides data charts based on CST
and EAP for Mathematics and English/Language Arts
Helps schools benchmark performance against top performing
schools with comparable student populations
Connects schools with high performing schools to learn and
implement effective strategies that improve student achievement
Helps schools predict how 9th graders may perform by 11th
grade if nothing changes
Identifies effective 12th grade interventions
www.jftk-ca.org
EAP Statistics--Spring 2005
EAP testing available in all public high schools
English EAP
- 186,000 of 407,000 eligible juniors took English EAP (46% of all
eligible)
- 23.5% exempt
Mathematics EAP
- 119,000 of 172,000 eligible juniors took Math EAP (69% of all
eligible)
- 56% exempt
2004: 153,000 of 386,000 eligible juniors took English (22%
exempt)
2004: 115,000 of 157,000 eligible juniors took math (55%
exempt)
Resources
Early Assessment Program Home Page:
- www.calstate.edu/eap
Math Success Website:
- www.csumathsuccess.org
English Success Website:
- www.csuenglishsuccess.org
ALEKS ELM Tutorial:
- www.csumathsuccess.org/alekslink
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
- www.calstate.edu/eap/documents/eapfaqfinal/pdf
Just for the Kids
- www.jftk-ca.org