[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND
COMPLETION FOR LOW INCOME
AND FIRST GENERATION STUDENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
AND WORKFORCE TRAINING
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 30, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-315 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Ranking Member
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands
Luke Messer, Indiana Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
David Brat, Virginia Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Buddy Carter, Georgia Mark Takano, California
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York
Rick Allen, Georgia
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Matt Salmon, Arizona Ranking Minority Member
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Mark DeSaulnier, California
Luke Messer, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Elise Stefanik, New York Jared Polis, Colorado
Rick Allen, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 30, 2015................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training........................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training........................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Alexander, Dr. Charles J., Associate Vice Provost for Student
Diversity, Director, Academic Advancement Program,
Associate Adjunct Professor, University of California, Los
Angeles, CA................................................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Cooper, Dr. Michelle A., President, Institute for Higher
Education Policy, Washington, DC........................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
May, Dr. Joe D., Chancellor, Dallas County Community College
District, Dallas, TX....................................... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Perna, Dr. Laura, Riepe, James S., Executive Director,
Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA............................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND
COMPLETION FOR LOW-INCOME
AND FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS
----------
Thursday, April 30, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Foxx, Curbelo, Allen, Hinojosa,
Jeffries, Adams, DeSaulnier, and Polis.
Also present: Representative Scott.
Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Alex Azer,
Intern; Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services
Coordinator; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Brian Melnyk,
Professional Staff Member; Daniel Murner, Deputy Press
Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Jenny
Prescott, Legislative Assistant; Alex Ricci, Legislative
Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and
Senior Counsel; Emily Slack, Professional Staff Member; Alissa
Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern
and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff
Assistant; Eamonn Collins, Minority Education Policy Advisor;
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Tina Hone, Minority
Education Policy Director and Associate General Counsel; Tracie
Sanchez, Minority Education Policy Fellow.
Chairwoman Foxx. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee
on Higher Education and Workforce Training will come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to today's subcommittee hearing.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us to
discuss strategies for improving postsecondary access and
completion for low-income and first-generation students. We
appreciate the opportunity to learn from you as Congress works
to reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
This is a very personal issue for me. As someone who grew
up in extreme poverty, I know firsthand what it takes to earn a
degree in difficult circumstances as well as what that degree
means for one's opportunity for advancement.
Some of the most rewarding experiences I have had as an
educator involved helping disadvantaged students overcome
obstacles to reach their goals and achieve success.
Fortunately, I have lots of stories like that.
The Education and Workforce Committee has held more than a
dozen hearings about how to strengthen America's higher
education system for all those who choose to pursue a degree or
credential, regardless of age, background, or circumstances.
Research shows students who attain advanced levels of
education are more likely to succeed in today's economy. For
example, students who earn an associate's degree are expected
to earn 27 percent more than their peers with a high school
diploma over the course of a lifetime.
For many students, however, the idea of graduating feels
like a distant dream. Higher cost, confusing financial aid
system, and insufficient academic preparation
disproportionately deter low-income and first-generation
students from accessing and completing a higher education.
Recognizing the challenges facing these students, the
federal government invests in numerous programs geared toward
identifying and supporting disadvantaged students and the
institutions that serve them. In addition to providing students
need-based financial assistance such as Pell Grants, the
federal government also provides early outreach and support
services to help students progress from middle school through
college.
Programs such as GEAR UP and Upward Bound receive more than
$1 billion of taxpayer dollars to support tutoring, family
financial counseling, internships, research opportunities, and
other preparatory and motivational services, all with the goal
of improving access for low-income and first-generation
students.
And our efforts don't stop there. Because improving the
education outcomes for disadvantaged students is an important
priority, the federal government directly supports institutions
that focus on serving underrepresented students in an effort to
help them complete a higher education.
While these efforts are well intentioned, there is a
growing concern they are not reaching their goals. For example,
according to a study published earlier this year by one of our
witnesses, Dr. Laura Perna, the percentage of low-income
students who have attained a bachelor's degree has increased by
just 3 percent since 1970. By comparison, the percentage of the
wealthiest students who attained a bachelor's degree has
increased by 40 percent.
In other words, despite the federal government's growing
investment in access and completion programs over the last 5
decades, graduation rates for the most disadvantaged students
have barely budged. We have a responsibility to students,
families, and taxpayers to ensure all of our spending in higher
education deliver the intended results. Understanding how to
strengthen these efforts for low-income and first-generation
students is why our witnesses are here today.
As we work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we want
to learn about your efforts to pioneer new strategies and study
the effectiveness of existing strategies so that more
disadvantaged students can achieve the dream of a higher
education.
With that, I now recognize my ranking member, Congressman
Hinojosa, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Training
I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us to discuss
strategies for improving postsecondary access and completion for low-
income and first-generation students. We appreciate the opportunity to
learn from you as Congress works to reauthorize the Higher Education
Act.
This is a very personal issue for me. As someone who grew up in
extreme poverty, I know firsthand what it takes to earn a degree in
difficult circumstances as well as what that degree means for one's
opportunity for advancement. Some of the most rewarding experiences I
have had as an educator involved helping disadvantaged students
overcome obstacles to reach their goals and achieve success.
The Education and the Workforce Committee has held more than a
dozen hearings about how to strengthen America's higher education
system for all those who choose to pursue a degree or credential -
regardless of age, background, or circumstances.
Research shows students who attain advanced levels of education are
more likely to succeed in today's economy. For example, students who
earn an associate's degree are expected to earn 27 percent more than
their peers with a high school diploma over the course of a lifetime.
For many students, however, the idea of graduating feels like a
distant dream. Higher costs, a confusing financial aid system, and
insufficient academic preparation disproportionately deter low-income
and first-generation students from accessing and completing a higher
education.
Recognizing the challenges facing these students, the federal
government invests in numerous programs geared toward identifying and
supporting disadvantaged students and the institutions that serve them.
In addition to providing students need-based financial assistance, such
as Pell Grants, the federal government also provides early outreach and
support services to help students progress from middle school through
college.
Programs such as GEAR UP and Upward Bound receive more than one
billion of taxpayer dollars to support tutoring, family financial
counseling, internships, research opportunities, and other preparatory
and motivational services - all with the goal of improving access for
low-income and first-generation students.
And our efforts don't stop there. Because improving the educational
outcomes for disadvantaged students is an important priority, the
federal government directly supports institutions that focus on serving
underrepresented students in an effort to help them complete a higher
education.
While these efforts are well intentioned, there is a growing
concern they are not reaching their goals. For example, according to a
study published earlier this year by one of our witnesses, Dr. Laura
Perna, the percentage of low-income students who have attained a
bachelor's degree has increased by just 3 percent since 1970. By
comparison, the percentage of the wealthiest students who attained a
bachelor's degree has increased by 40 percent.
In other words, despite the federal government's growing investment
in access and completion programs over the last five decades,
graduation rates for the most disadvantaged students have barely
budged.
We have a responsibility to students, families, and taxpayers to
ensure all of our investments in higher education deliver the intended
results. Understanding how to strengthen these efforts for low-income
and first-generation students is why our witnesses are here today. As
we work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we want to learn about
your efforts to pioneer new strategies and study the effectiveness of
existing strategies so that more disadvantaged students can achieve the
dream of a higher education.
______
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
Today's hearing will focus on how our nation can improve
college access and completion for low-income and first-
generation college students. I want to join the chairwoman in
welcoming our witnesses, Dr. Michelle Cooper, Dr. Charles
Alexander, Dr. Laura Perna, and Dr. Joe May--and I am proud to
say, from my home state of Texas.
Preparing all students for good, family-sustaining jobs and
careers and a bright future must be a guiding principle for HEA
reauthorization. A highly skilled 21st century workforce is key
to strengthening our nation's economy and to reducing income
inequality and poverty.
The Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce found
that 63 percent of all jobs will require workers with at least
some postsecondary education by 2018. If our nation is going to
compete in the global economy we must be sure that all these
students are reaching their full potential and obtaining
postsecondary education.
Low-income and first-generation students face substantial
hurdles in applying to college and receiving financial aid they
need. Too often, they enter unprepared and they struggle to
persist in their studies and ultimately graduate.
Meanwhile, college costs have continued to rise while
student debt now tops $1.2 trillion.
First-generation students like myself are older, more
likely to be independent students and to have families of their
own. They are more likely to be enrolled part-time and to
withdraw and reenroll over and over again the course of their
education.
First-generation students are most likely to be enrolled in
associate degree programs, and many transfer between community
colleges and 4-year institutions over the course of their
education. This process needs to be seamless so time and money
are not wasted retaking coursework.
We also know that too many students enter postsecondary
education unprepared for college-level coursework. According to
the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2011 through
2012, 36 percent of college students whose parents had a high
school diploma or less reported needing to take remedial
coursework, compared to only 28 percent of students whose
parents had a bachelor's degree or higher.
Forty percent of Pell Grant recipients need to take
remedial courses to improve their basic skills. Unfortunately,
according to Complete College America, 70 percent of students
who begin in remedial math never enroll in the next level
college course.
While we need to bolster our K-12 system to ensure that
students are entering college prepared, we should also
encourage innovative practices to increase success rates.
Instead of prerequisite remedial courses, some institutions are
experimenting with co-requisites, where students enroll in
college-level courses but also take an additional support class
or stay for extra tutoring after class.
MSIs, which are minority-serving institutions, enroll and
graduate significant proportions of minority students and play
a vital role in higher education for low-income and first-
generation students. Through innovative practices, many are
boosting graduation rates.
Between the years of 2000 and 2012, University of Texas at
El Paso, an HSI in my home state of Texas, increased the total
number of undergraduate degrees awarded by 79 percent while
enrollment only grew by 26 percent.
So what did they do? At U.T. Center for Institutional
Evaluation, Research, and Planning created a data tool for
deans to track students' term-to-term enrollment status,
allowing advisors to contact students who do not reenroll and
help them get back on track. We need to maintain strong funding
levels for these institutions like El Paso's University of
Texas.
Pell Grants are another critical tool to keep college in
reach for these students. Just last week I introduced four
bills--H.R. 1956, H.R. 1957, H.R. 1958, and H.R. 1959--with our
former colleague, Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. She
introduced her legislation that mirrors mine last week, as I
did.
That, ladies and gentlemen, will strengthen Pell and
restore the summer Pell program, which has--which was key in
helping students graduate on time and with much less debt. I
hope this committee, members on both sides of the aisle, will
approve these bills when they come before us.
Finally, federal investments in GEAR UP, HEP/CAMP, and TRIO
programs are transforming the lives of millions of
disadvantaged students by providing them with academic support
and services they need to success in school. The GEAR UP
program in my district--congressional district number 15 in
Texas--has had great success by adding a financial literacy
component, which is helping parents and students understand the
financial resources available to help them finance their higher
education.
I look forward to hearing from each one of you what other
recommendations you as panelists may have to make a college
education accessible and affordable to greater numbers of low-
income, minority, and first-generation college students.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The testimony of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Higher Education and Workforce Training
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. Today's hearing will focus on how our
nation can improve college access and completion for low-income and
first generation college students. I want to join the chairwoman in
welcoming our witnesses, Dr. Michelle Cooper, Dr. Charles Alexander,
Dr. Laura Perna and Dr. Joe may from my home state of Texas.
Preparing all students for good family sustaining jobs and careers
and a bright future must be a guiding principle for h-e-a
reauthorization.
A highly skilled 21st century workforce is key to strengthening our
nation's economy and to reducing income inequality and poverty. The
Georgetown Center on education and the workforce found that 63 percent
of all jobs will require workers with at least some postsecondary
education by 2018.
If our nation is going to compete in the global economy, we must
make sure that all these students are reaching their full potential and
obtaining postsecondary education.
Low-income and first generation students face substantial hurdles
in applying to college and receiving the financial aid they need.
Too often they enter unprepared, and struggle to persist in their
studies and ultimately graduate. Meanwhile, college costs have
continued to rise, with student debt now topping 1.2 trillion dollars.
First generation students are older, more likely to be independent
students and to have families of their own. They are more likely to be
enrolled part time and to withdraw and re-enroll over the course of
their education. First-generation students are most likely to be
enrolled in associate's degree programs and many transfer between
community colleges and four-year institutions over the course of their
education. This process needs to be seamless so time and money are not
wasted retaking coursework.
We also know that too many students enter postsecondary education
unprepared for college-level coursework. According to the national
center for education statistics, in 2011-2012, 36 percent of college
students whose parents had a high school diploma or less reported
needing to take remedial coursework, compared to 28 percent of students
whose parents had a bachelor's degree or higher. 40 percent of Pell
grant recipients need to take remedial courses to improve their basic
skills.
Unfortunately, according to complete college America, 70% of
students who begin in remedial math never enroll in the next-level
college course.
While we need to bolster our k-12 system to ensure that students
are entering college prepared, we should also encourage innovative
practices to increase success rates. Instead of ``pre-requisite''
remedial courses, some institutions are experimenting with ``co-
requisites'' where students enroll in college-level courses, but also
take an additional support class or stay for extra tutoring after
class.
Msi's enroll and graduate significant proportions of minority
students and play a vital role in higher education for low-income and
first-generation students. Through innovative practices, many are
boosting graduation rates.
Between 2000 and 2012, the University of Texas at El Paso, an hsi
in my home state, increased the total number of undergraduate degrees
awarded by 79 percent while enrollment only grew by 26 percent. Utep's
center for institutional evaluation research and planning created a
data tool for deans to track students term-to-term enrollment status,
allowing advisors to contact students who do not re-enroll and help
them get back on track. Pell grants are another critical tool to keep
College in reach for these students.
Just last week, I introduced four bills, (H.R. 1956, H.R. 1957,
H.R. 1958 and H.R. 1959) with our former colleague, Senator Mazie
Hirono of Hawaii, that will strengthen Pell and restore the summer Pell
program which was key in helping students graduate on time with less
debt. I hope this committee will approve these bills.
Finally, federal investments in gear-up, hep-camp, and trio
programs are transforming the lives of millions of disadvantaged
students by providing them with the academic support and services they
need to succeed in school.
The gear-up program in my district has had great success by adding
a financial literacy component which is helping parents and students
understand the resources available to help finance higher education.
I look forward to hearing what other recommendations our panelists
may have to make a college education accessible and affordable to
greater numbers of low income, minority and first generation college
students.
With that, I yield back.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinojosa.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be
permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record
will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted for the official hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished
witnesses.
Dr. Laura Perna is a James S. Riepe professor and founding
executive director of the Alliance for Higher Education and
Democracy at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. She is currently president of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education.
Dr. Perna's scholarship focuses on the way social
structures, educational purposes, and public policies promote
and limit college access and success and has been published in
books, journals, and policy reports.
Dr. Charles Alexander is the associate vice provost for
student diversity and director of the Academic Advancement
Program, AAP, at UCLA in Los Angeles, California. He also
serves as adjunct associate professor in the Division of Public
Health and Community Dentistry at the UCLA School of Dentistry.
Prior to joining UCLA, he oversaw student admissions,
outreach, and recruitment, academic support programs, and
student services at U.C. San Francisco.
Dr. Michelle Asha Cooper is the president of the Institute
for Higher Education Policy here in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cooper
previously served as the deputy director for the advisory
committee on student financial assistance at the Department of
Education and has held various leadership positions at the
Association of American Colleges and Universities, Council for
Independent Colleges, and King's College.
Dr. Joe May is chancellor of the Dallas County Community
College District in Dallas, Texas. Prior to this, Dr. May
served 7 years as president of the Louisiana Community and
Technical College System, where enrollment increased from
71,000 to more than 160,000 students under his tenure. He is
known nationally and internationally for his advocacy for the
role of community colleges in solving today's pressing social
issues.
I now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
You may take your seat.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly explain our lighting system. You have 5 minutes to
present your testimony.
When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green.
When the--1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. When
your time is expired, the light will turn red. At that point, I
will ask you to wrap up your remarks as best you are able.
Members will each have 5 minutes to ask questions.
Now, Dr. Perna, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
I am not sure your mike is on.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LAURA PERNA, JAMES S. RIEPE PROFESSOR,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND
DEMOCRACY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PA
Ms. Perna. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to comment on best practices for helping low-income
and first-generation students access and complete college. I am
honored to have the opportunity to speak with you today.
The federal government plays an important role in promoting
higher education attainment through the financial aid programs
that are authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act.
Of particular importance is the federal Pell Grant. Research
consistently demonstrates the negative implications for college
enrollment when college prices increase and grant aid
decreases.
The negative effects are particularly large for the
enrollment of students from low-income families. Providing
sufficient funding so as to at least maintain the purchasing
power of the Pell Grant is important to preserving the
affordability of higher education for students from low-income
families.
Although essential, investment in need-based grant aid is
insufficient. The federal TRIO programs and other college
access and success programs also contribute to the goal of
raising higher education attainment for students from groups
that are historically underrepresented in higher education.
As detailed further in my written testimony, I offer five
recommendations to guide your committee's consideration of
college access and success programs.
So first, target students with the greatest financial need.
We must recognize and address the many ways that inequality is
structured into the pathways into and through college. Students
from low-income families have fewer financial resources to pay
the direct cost of the college attendance and the many less
visible costs of college access and completion.
Students from low-income families also typically attend
high schools and postsecondary educational institutions that
have fewer resources to invest in and support students'
college-related outcomes. Targeting programs to low-income and
first-generation students helps to level the playing field for
higher education opportunity.
Second, assist students with navigating pathways into and
through college with particular attention to financial aid
processes. Although much information about college going and
financial aid processes is available via the Internet and other
sources, simply making information out there is insufficient.
Students and their families need to be able to determine
which information is most useful and relevant, given their
financial circumstances, academic preparation, their goals, and
their interests. Low-income and first-generation students
especially need guidance with the many steps that promote
college entry, including preparing for and taking college
admissions tests, searching for colleges that are well-suited
to their goals and interests, visiting college campuses,
submitting college applications, and more.
Low-income and first-generation students also need to
understand the availability of financial aid and how to get the
aid that is out there. They also often require assistance with
completing financial aid application forms.
Third recommendation is to adapt programs to recognize the
state, regional, and local context, as well as the
characteristics of students served. To have a meaningful effect
on students' college-related outcomes, college access and
success programs need to adapt the delivery of services to
recognize the context in which the programs are embedded.
Particularly important are the characteristics of state
policies pertaining to high school graduation and assessment
requirements and the higher education options that are
available in the state, region, and locality.
Programs also need to recognize the differences in the
needs of the students served. So middle and high school
students, for example, require different types of support and
assistance than veterans and unemployed adults who aspire to
complete college.
Fourth, leverage federal spending to serve greater numbers
of students. Although the federal government's investment in
TRIO programs enables the provision of services to some
students, many more low-income and first-generation students
also require assistance. TRIO programs serve only a very small
fraction, estimated less than 5 percent, of the nation's total
population of low-income and first-generation college students.
Given constraints on the availability of additional
dollars, the federal government should consider ways to
leverage its investment to encourage greater support for
college access and success programming from other entities as
well as partnerships among the many programs that are also
sponsored by state governments, colleges and universities,
philanthropic organizations, and other entities.
The fifth recommendation is to encourage research that
improves our understanding of best practices for college access
and success programs. To maximize the return on investment in
college access and success programs, we need to know more about
what components and services work, for which groups of
students, and in which contexts.
With more and better research, we will ensure that finite
resources are used to most effectively improve college-related
outcomes for students from low-income families and first-
generation college students.
Thank you for your attention.
[The testimony of Dr. Perna follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Alexander, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES J. ALEXANDER, ASSOCIATE VICE PROVOST
FOR STUDENT DIVERSITY, DIRECTOR, ACADEMIC ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM,
ASSOCIATE ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member
Hinojosa, and all the members of the subcommittee, for inviting
me to testify today.
I am a product of a single-parent household, and when I was
young my mother aspired for me to attend college one day. As I
came to the end of my senior year in high school, I thought I
was prepared to enter college and compete with the rest of the
students who were entering higher education institutions that
year.
However, I soon learned that college was much more
challenging than my high school was. I was fortunate, however,
to be recruited by a college success program that provided me
with a summer bridge experience, academic support services, and
the guidance that I needed to succeed; 4 years later I
completed my bachelor's degree and later went on to earn my
master's and doctorate in the sociology of education.
So I can attest to the fact that if it were not for the
support of these programs and the encouragement of my mother,
of course, and extended family, I would not be here today
sharing testimony with this committee.
Let me share with you a model student academic support
program that I oversee at UCLA. The Academic Advancement
Program, AAP, has been in existence since 1971. It is a
multiracial, multiethnic academic program that advocates
access, equity, and opportunity, and excellence in its
students.
AAP students represent about 23 percent of the UCLA student
body, which is about 24,000 undergraduates. It is a
comprehensive support program that provides integrated
services, setting the highest standards for them; promoting
academic, personal, and programmatic excellence; and building
communities of shared learning.
AAP is supported by a mixture of state, federal, and
foundation funding. State funding represents the majority of
our overall budget. Included in my written testimony you will
see the funding sources and types.
A significant number of AAP students come from low-income
families, are eligible for Pell Grants, and are in the first in
their family to attend college; 63 percent are from
historically underrepresented communities.
Each summer, AAP runs a rigorous, academic, 6-week,
residential program for 400 entering freshmen and transfers.
This is approximately 12 percent of the 34,000 students who are
eligible for the program. Students take two to three university
courses, and the summer bridge program could enroll more if
additional funding were available.
AAP also provides peer-facilitated learning communities
based on a dialogical pedagogy, collaborative learning
workshops, academic personal counseling, innovative science
programs, and scholarships. AAP has a comprehensive mentoring
program that encourages all students to prepare for graduate
and professional schools, and provides resources to support
this end.
AAP also oversees a federally funded TRIO program, the
Ronald E. McNair Scholars Program. Twenty-three of the first 33
McNair scholars are enrolled in graduate programs.
Over the past 10 years, AAP has responded to a growing
number of eligible transfer students. AAP's work with its
transfer students has resulted in a dramatic increase in their
4-year graduation rates, from 61 percent 15 years ago to 83
percent today.
We push our students to use all the university resources.
College Honors is a nationally renowned program that provides
students the organization and environment within which to
pursue individual excellence. The percentage of AAP students in
Honors has increased from 4 percent in the early 1990s to 17
percent today.
Another campus partner that we work closely with is the
Program for Excellence in Education and Research in the
Sciences, otherwise known as PEERS. PEERS is a primary
retention program for entering underrepresented life and
physical science students. Since its inception in 2003, 340
students have completed the PEERS program and 84 percent have
graduated with UCLA science degrees.
Engagement in PEERS clearly improves academic success and
retention in science, eliminating the achievement gap for URM
students in science. Many of our graduates go on and earn
Ph.D.s, go to professional school.
We have exchanged ideas with a number of universities
across the country, including the University of Michigan,
Maryland, Cal Berkeley, Cal Irvine, University of Texas, and
international universities, such as Vrije University in
Amsterdam, the University of Rwanda, and the University of
Johannesburg. We have been hosted by visitors from Australia,
Great Britain, South Korea, the Netherlands, South Africa, and
many other countries.
A tenet of our AAP's philosophy that has resulted in
spectacular graduation rates is the belief that when students
work in the program to promote the success of other students,
they gain the self-confidence and self-respect that propels
them to graduate. By employing AAP students as tutors and as
peer counselors, we set up a model of academic achievement that
promotes the values of giving back to the community.
Most AAP students employees are paid with work study and
institutional funds, and 100 percent of these students
graduate. A 100 percent graduate rate is AAP's goal for all of
its students.
Let me close by thanking Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member
Hinojosa, and the other members of the subcommittee today for
the opportunity to appear before you. I am happy to answer any
questions at any time.
Thank you.
[The testimony of Dr. Alexander follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Alexander.
Dr. Cooper, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHELLE ASHA COOPER, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Cooper. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and
members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for
this opportunity.
At IHEP we focus on issues related to college access and
success for low-income and first-generation students. We
recognize the important role of colleges and universities in
serving these students.
Given that, I would like to discuss the role of minority-
serving institutions, MSIs, which serve large numbers of first-
generation and low-income students.
Most MSIs are public institutions. For example, the
majority of the 409 Hispanic-serving institutions and 296
emerging HSIs are public, with 46 percent of HSIs being
community colleges.
Almost half of all students at MSIs receive Pell Grants,
with even greater numbers of Pell recipients attending HBCUs
and tribal colleges. While the term ``MSIs'' refer to
institutions with similar student profiles, these schools do
have different histories and missions. Unlike other MSIs, the
mission of tribal colleges and HBCUs have deep historical roots
in the communities that they serve.
Many MSIs have strategies for educating low-income and
first-generation students. I will mention a few, but before
doing so, I want to stress the role of federal policymaking in
supporting these students who can be found not only at MSIs but
at other institutions, as well.
Therefore, for federal policymaking I offer four
recommendations.
First, collect and provide more useful and usable data to
students and their families. Students need clear and reliable
data presented in user-friendly ways to inform their college
choices and decisions. Likewise, policymakers need more
comprehensive data to inform policy conversations and decision-
making.
Second, increase the investment in the Pell Grant and
simplify the financial aid process. Even though many MSIs try
to hold tuition to levels that are relatively affordable,
students still rely heavily on financial aid. To support these
students, we must maintain and possibly even increase Pell
Grant funding. We also need to simplify the financial aid
process.
Third, we must increase support for TRIO and GEAR UP. Over
a million students combined benefit from TRIO and GEAR UP. With
a stronger investment, both programs could help so many more
students, especially since the need is ever growing.
More details about these three recommendations can be found
in the written testimony and I am happy to discuss.
My fourth recommendation brings me back to MSIs. I
recommend that policymakers set high expectations for MSIs and
support those that serve their students well. Many MSI leaders
have already taken steps to improve student outcomes and
institutional outcomes.
For example, the University of Texas at El Paso and St.
Edward's University prioritize success for Hispanic students,
which is evident by their strong outcomes and high graduation
rates. St. Edward's actually has the highest graduation rate of
all HSIs, at 72 percent. U.T. El Paso also offers dual
enrollment with the local high schools and the local community
college, which helps to reduce cost and time to degree.
At HBCUs, like Fayetteville State University and Norfolk
State University, faculty and student affairs collaborate on
data-driven solutions to support students. Fayetteville State
targeted efforts towards their men of color, and both
institutions strengthened teaching and learning practices.
Also, there are MSIs like California State, Northridge,
which intentionally increased the enrollment of their Pell
Grant recipients and first-generation students even as the
state cut its budget. And there is North Carolina Central
University, which eliminated waste and inefficiencies in
several program areas and then funneled those savings into
student success efforts.
Institutional reforms like these examples are rarely
discussed at the national level. Even when faced with chronic
underfunding, these and other college leaders have simply
decided to do more with less. While I recognize that this is an
honorable strategy, doing more with less is not a sustainable
strategy.
In conclusion, it is important for federal policymakers to
enhance support for MSIs that are enrolling and, most
importantly, graduating and preparing their students to lead
productive lives.
Thank you.
[The testimony of Dr. Cooper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Cooper.
Dr. May, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOE D. MAY, CHANCELLOR, DALLAS COUNTY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DALLAS, TEXAS
Mr. May. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
Hinojosa, and members of the subcommittee.
The Dallas County Community College District comprises
seven colleges and supports more than 100,000 students through
our 7,000 employees. You described the problem so well in your
opening comments, and we witness the same: Changing
demographics among our students has prompted changes in how we
help students and how we prepare them to enter the workforce
and earn a living wage.
Every college in the Dallas County Community College
District is a minority-serving institution, with diverse
representation among Africa-Americans, Asian-Americans, and
Latinos. Six of our seven colleges are Hispanic-serving
institutions, and the seventh is predominantly African-
American. As a predominantly HSI system, Dallas community
colleges offer Latino students support through TRIO programs
and other services, as well.
Since being designated as HSIs, the Dallas County Community
College District colleges have closed the gaps in three key
areas: District Hispanic enrollment reflects the demographics
of Dallas County at 37.1 percent, and 39 percent in terms of
completion of degrees; course performance with Hispanic
students successfully completing attempted credit hours has
gone up; and credentials with Hispanic students earning 31
percent of those awarded in our most recent year of 2014.
We emphasize completion and credentials so that students
can be ready to earn a living wage and build a career. In our
colleges that serve the most Hispanic students, student support
service staff members use a case management approach to guide
students through their academic pursuits, and we will provide
the data in terms of the success of that approach.
As a result, 75 percent of the TRIO participants at
Mountain View College are members of student associations, such
as student government, Phi Theta Kappa, and athletic teams.
Last year, almost 70 percent of Dallas County colleges'
Hispanic students successfully completed their courses. Both
TRIO and Title V services are not only important, they are
essential to continue to grow our workforce and build the
middle class.
We have engaged with Texas Completes, a statewide community
college initiative to share data and strategies to improve
student outcomes. Efforts through this partnership have led to
an increase of 42 percent in certificates and an increase in 33
percent in associate degrees at--in Dallas from 2010 to 2014.
Our dual credit and early college high school programs
offer additional options for at-risk students. Dual credit
enables high school students to earn transferable college
credits.
Dallas County colleges provide dual credit tuition free to
our students. Dual credit students also earn more credits per
semester than our traditional students, which places at-risk
students in a much stronger position toward completion.
Our six early college high schools enroll 2,000 students,
with Hispanics comprising 40 percent. They also account for
34.8 percent of the 700 early college high school students who
graduate with both a high school diploma and a 2-year associate
degree. Three of these schools have achieved National Blue
Ribbon status.
Today everyone needs some education beyond high school.
There are simply no jobs for those who do not have a credential
that gives them the tools to earn a living wage.
And I believe in order to ensure that the middle class
dreams of our students become a reality that Congress can
affect positive change. I would like to leave you with four
recommendations.
One, as the nation's demographics shift, an analysis should
be conducted to ensure that TRIO funds are available to
institutions that are early in the transition of serving
minority and low-income students. Guidelines should be
broadened to encourage partnerships with faith-based community
organizations and others that are supporting the needs of
similar populations.
Two, rather than keep TRIO programs separate from others
within the institution, they should be integrated in a manner
that ensures that the number of students served is not limited
by federal dollars. The approach currently taken has the impact
of capping who is served. This cap could easily be removed by
requiring integration with existing services.
Increasingly, the fastest-growing HSI colleges are
community colleges. As community colleges enroll over half of
Hispanics in higher education, this designation is important to
help them design successful strategies around student success
and STEM. A continued emphasis should be placed on improving
completion rates and student success.
Four, in addition to partnerships--partnerships should be
broadened to encourage the development and implementation of
early college high schools, as this approach has a proven
record of improving high school graduation rates, college
readiness, reducing time to degree, and improving GPAs, and
improving college completion.
Thank you for your time and your attention today, and for
your support of our students.
[The testimony of Dr. May follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. May.
I want to thank all of you for great presentations.
I would now like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Curbelo,
for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And I thank the ranking member, as well, and the witnesses,
for making some time for us this morning.
Dr. Alexander, you mentioned the Academic Advancement
Program during your testimony that serves as a summer bridge
program for entering freshmen and transfers. Florida
International University, in the district I represent, also
offers a summer bridge program that has helped students
transition from high school to college.
FIU has also created programs intended to help low-income
and first-generation students gain access and the proper
preparation to be successful during their experience in higher
ed. I am proud to report that FIU is one of the nation's
largest, most diverse institutions in higher education, with
over 54,000 students and 200,000 alumni. Nearly 53 percent of
FIU's undergraduate student body will be the first generation
in their families to attain a college degree.
To maximize access and completion, FIU has revolutionized
student advising, created outside partnerships and initiatives,
and leveraged Pell Grants and funding. And FIU has a strong
partnership with Miami-Dade County public schools, focused on
high school student success through dual enrollment and other
programs.
They are hoping to incentivize a K-12 higher ed
collaboration through their program called ACCESS, which is
chaired by Superintendent Alberto Carvalho and President Mark
Rosenberg. So far, the programs have been very successful
promoting enrollment and graduation rates.
How do you think we can incentivize more of these types of
partnerships between K-12 and higher ed to ease the transition
for students and improve access for low-income, first-
generation, and minority students?
Mr. Alexander. Thank you for that question.
One of the programs that we conduct at UCLA is called the
Vice Provost Initiative for Pre-College Scholars. It is a
cohort program that works with eight high schools, and
basically what happens is students are recruited after their
ninth grade year and they are part of a cohort that enters the
university during the summers--2 weeks during--between their
sophomore and junior year, 5 weeks, between their junior and
senior year.
And the idea is to provide them this college readiness,
this preparation, these workshops, in collaboration with their
parents, so their parents partner in this pathway that we have
created for these students to enter to the university. These
students have been highly successful.
Many have gone to other schools besides UCLA, though we try
to recruit them, but they have been highly successful to the
extent that the program was funded by a huge foundation grant,
but now we are seeking institutional funding for the program
itself. The students also receive a scholarship from the
university--those who enroll in UCLA--a 4-year scholarship to
help them with matriculating towards a degree.
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you.
And, Madam Chair, I want to ask an open question to anyone
who will take it during my allotted time.
I was with President Dona Shalala of the University of
Miami earlier this week and she tells me that one of the
greatest burdens on higher ed today is compliance, and that
they are constantly having to deviate resources from student
services to compliance. Do you any of you have any ideas as to
what we can do to perhaps relieve the regulatory burden on our
universities and colleges so that they have, in turn, more
resources to dedicate to students--specifically the students we
are discussing here today, the ones that most need the help?
Ms. Cooper. I think that we definitely have to be mindful
of the regulatory burden that institutions are certainly very
vocal about and bringing to our attention. There are several
things that I think could be done, and I think we need to first
of all consider what are we asking them and whether or not it
continues to be appropriate for the current context.
Many questions and many of the things required currently in
these reporting requirements are outdated; we simply no longer
need them. And I think we need to start and focus on what are
the kinds of questions that we need to ask, and what are the
types of metrics that we need to gather in order to be able to
answer them effectively.
I would suggest looking at things like access, progression,
cost, and post-college outcomes to start. I also note that
there has recently been a regulatory task force that was
convened by the American Council on Education that looked at
this issue, and I think that they have some good
recommendations, as well, that offer us a starting point.
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you very much.
My time is about to expire, but I want to thank all the
witnesses.
And thank you, Madam Chair, for scheduling this important
hearing.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
Dr. May, I was very pleased to hear you discuss the role of
early college high schools. I believe that in my congressional
district down in South Texas, Region One Education Service
Center, which represents students from Laredo, Texas to
Brownsville, Texas, 200-mile geographic area, is leading the
state of Texas with 33 of these early college high school
programs.
Many students are coming out of high school with 2 years of
college and their associate degree free of charge. In fact, we
are working with one of our hospitals, Doctors Hospital at
Renaissance, to implement a pilot program, first of its kind in
the nation, which would graduate high school students with an
R.N. degree.
How do you believe the federal government can help expand
this exemplary model throughout the nation?
Mr. May. Well, one--and thank you very much. I am a early
college high school enthusiast because it works. We see
students often enter in the ninth grade with only being 6
percent college-ready in mathematics graduate, and we have 100
percent of our students who graduate from high school college-
ready in all areas, with well over a 90 percent completion
rate; 40 percent of those are graduating with a high school
diploma and an associate's degree.
So I think the encouragement here are a couple of things.
One, right now, even through data collection and reporting, we
don't collect and look at what is going on with dual enrollment
programs between community colleges and schools or early
college programs, either. That would be a--I think a goal
worthy of tracking, because the results of these efforts are
absolutely astounding when you look at the success of--
Mr. Hinojosa. That information that you say that we are
lacking is something that I have heard in Texas. Dr. Steve
Murdock, I think he has an office at Rice University, a famous
demographer, and he has a lot of data that when I heard Dr.
Cooper give so much information on all the MSIs, it sounds like
some of what he has used in some of his speeches.
And I think that you are right, we need to collect more
information on each and every one of the MSIs, because that is
the only way that we are going to be able to prescribe the
right programs and methods so that we can increase those
graduation rates.
Mr. May. I agree. If parents can make better decisions for
their children while they are in high school they will do so,
and simply assuming that they are going to figure it out on
their own without some assistance with that is less likely to
happen than if we can provide that information that clarifies
the importance of programs like early college high schools and
others that can lead to student success.
Mr. Hinojosa. I want to share with you that I came to
Congress in 1997 and I learned what HSI meant: Hispanic-serving
institutions. And I saw that the funding by the appropriators
was $10 million a year for what was listed as 100 HSIs, and
once they doled out the money, which was crumbs, maybe 20 or 30
HSIs really got money.
So I worked on trying to do something about that, and I am
the author of Title V of the Education Code. And obviously I
believe that it is a vital component in helping low-income and
first-generation students, as we are discussing here, to
provide targeted assistance to all MSIs, which serve larger
numbers of these students.
How did Title V HSI funds support your ability to improve
completion rates for your students in Dallas?
Mr. May. Well, it is--they are critical. With Mountain View
College and El Centro College, we have focused on moving our
Hispanic students into STEM programs. We have given a great
deal of not only individual support, but encouraged them to
engage in student clubs and organizations so that they can be a
part of a cohort that are moving forward with like interests.
Not only have we seen our student persistence increase as a
result of that strategy; we have seen a growth of majors in
STEM degrees. That has been a large part of our enrollment
increase that has occurred as we have been able to make that
happen.
And in fact, we were able to use the Title V funds as part
of an overall initiative in order to put--
Mr. Hinojosa. I wish I had another 5 minutes to keep
talking with you.
Mr. May. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hinojosa. But, Dr. Cooper, I compliment you on your
facts. Your remarks are excellent, as all of your remarks are,
but I was especially interested in seeing how HSIs has gone
from 100 to over 400 HSIs. And thank goodness that Congress has
sense enough to increase the investments in minority-serving
institutions, because we have increased enrollment in community
colleges and universities by over 30 percent in the last 4
years.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Allen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you, to our panel--distinguished panel, for
joining us today. It is good to have you and good to learn more
about the education process, and particularly higher education.
I am a new member of Congress and I come from the business
community, so I understand a little bit about, you know, giving
folks the opportunity to have a good-paying job. And one thing
I have learned about education is the reason for education is
preparing folks to get a good job.
The other thing that I learned in business was that, you
know, folks are wired different ways. And if we can find out
how--you know, where their passions are, they tend to really
excel when they get--understand their passions and are allowed
to pursue those passions.
And, you know, from an accountability standpoint, you know,
I believe every young American should have the opportunity to
explore paths after high school, and I think we need to do it
after high school and before they spend 4 years on an
undergraduate degree and then say, ``Okay, what do I do now?''
And, you know, the issue that I see is that, you know, the
traditional 4-year degree is a process, but it doesn't
guarantee a good-paying job anymore. The traditional route is
not the only path to a job, and many good-paying technical jobs
go unfilled both in our district and all across the country.
Businesses are practically waiting for young, hardworking
Americans to step up to the plate.
You all mentioned high school programs. Do these programs
inform students of technical-type jobs that may be available to
them and how they may seek those? And what are some ways that
we can promote vocational learning to the low-income students?
And I will just throw that out to anyone who would like to
address that.
Mr. May. I would be glad to comment on that. I really think
the--you are exactly right.
The earlier we can engage--higher education can engage with
students while they are still in high school is very important
to be a part of that communication. The rate of change is so
fast that many students, parents, and teachers struggle to keep
up with that.
That is why, I mentioned earlier, why I think programs like
early college high schools, where we integrate the higher
education and the college while the student is still in school
are very important programs. They are not for everyone, but
they work.
Others, where we can engage in dual credit programs, where
a student again can begin to earn high school credit. The
important fact that we have learned from that is that our
students in high school can actually take--are taking a little
heavier--slightly heavier load than our full-time students who
are coming in as freshman, meaning that we are actually
accelerating not only time to degree, but the chance that they
are going to be successful and be able to get--enter a career
and get that great job.
Mr. Allen. Any other comments?
Yes?
Ms. Perna. So there is some research that suggests the
value of helping students to understand early in the
educational pipeline the different types of employment
possibilities. The research suggests that having that
understanding about how--what types of opportunities are
available helps--makes education more relevant, helps them
understand the many different types of pathways that we have.
Part of the challenge that we have in our higher education
system is that there are so many different types of
postsecondary options. And you are right, the data suggests
that not everyone needs a 4-year college degree. But the data
also do suggest that most need some education beyond high
school.
And so I think part of the challenge is for folks to be
able to understand what that range of choices is, what the
benefits and the costs of those different options are, and how
we make sure that we really do have real choice for folks.
Mr. Allen. You know, when my parents grew up they went to
work first and then went to college. And of course, they kind
of found their path and then said, ``Okay, now I am going to go
to college.'' And once you get that 4-year degree, then it
allows you to move on to the next level.
You know, the federal government has invested much time and
resources into college access for low-income students. Despite
this fact, these students still complete their degrees at lower
rates. What can we do to improve the graduation rates for our
low-income students?
And again, I would throw that out to whoever would like to
take that question.
Ms. Perna. So it is a really complex problem. There is no
one answer to this.
So in order to improve college attainment we really have to
focus on the academic readiness for success. We have to focus
on the ability to pay. And we have to focus on making sure
folks have the knowledge and information and support that they
need to navigate these pathways.
Mr. Allen. Okay.
Ms. Perna. Broad strokes--
Mr. Allen. All right.
Well, thank you again.
And I will yield back the--I have no time left.
Chairwoman Foxx. I now recognize the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank you and
Representative Hinojosa for convening the hearing.
This hearing is actually fairly timely. Just this past
Monday one of the largest for-profit college systems in the
nation, Corinthian Incorporated, shut its doors, and that was
after being hit with a $30 million fine by the Department of
Agriculture and--excuse me, Department of Education--and being
denied access to student financial assistance because of
findings such as misrepresentation to accrediting agencies and
students about their placement rates.
When you find such false advertising, it is appropriate for
the Department of Education to take action. There were other
institutions that may be doing the same things, and we need the
Department of Education to take the appropriate action when
there are specific findings of misconduct.
Now, we all know that a quality postsecondary education is
a proven path to the middle class, and we have heard comments
about the need for some education past the high school level in
order to participate in today's economy. But the high cost of
postsecondary education and the sharp reductions in student aid
are making it very difficult for low-income and first-
generation students to participate.
Many years ago, when the Pell Grant started, it covered
about 75 percent of the cost of attending a 4-year public
institution, and you heard people talk about working their way
through college. Get a summer job and a part-time job during
the year and you have got enough to close the gap and graduate
with virtually no loans.
Now the Pell Grant covers about a third of that cost, and
even less than that for a private college, and working your way
through college, even at 40 hours a week, is problematic
without coming out with a debt the size of their parents'
mortgages.
So we have to protect the access to college, and also we
have to protect the ability of those with financial strains to
actually graduate.
Just start off with a couple of questions.
Dr. Perna, you mentioned the financial aid form. Are people
actually not filling it out because of the complications?
Ms. Perna. Yes. There is some evidence that suggests that
low-income students who are eligible to receive a Pell Grant
attend college but they haven't applied for the aid.
Mr. Scott. Is that because of the complication of the form?
Ms. Perna. Well, that is what the--that is one hypothesis
on this, and it seems to suggest, given the complexity of the
form. And what we know through qualitative research, in terms
of understanding how folks, especially low-income students and
students for whom college is the--they are the first in their
families to attend college, filling out the form is
overwhelming, to some extent there is a distrust in the
process.
Mr. Scott. What are your findings about the financial
strain as a factor in completing college?
Ms. Perna. Financial strain is certainly an important
issue, and it plays out in several different respects. So as
you discussed, there are only so many mechanisms that students
have available to pay the cost of college. One is loans, and
there is evidence that shows that some students are averse to
taking out loans, and so, you know, that is one source--
Mr. Scott. And so they drop out?
Ms. Perna. Drop out or choose not to attend at all. Or they
decide to work to try to pay the cost through paid employment,
and that is also a tremendous source of strain for students.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. May, you mentioned the coalition works together to come
up with ideas that work. What kind of ideas did they come up
with?
Mr. May. Seven colleges within the state--mostly urban but
also one rural institution--where we are really diving deep in
the data to look at what is really working and what is not
working. One of the initial--we really focused on what is going
on with developmental education. As you know, the--many
students get into developmental education and never get out,
and never complete their degree.
So we have collectively begun a process of overhauling and
redesigning developmental education. In our case we have
reduced enrollment, as a result of the data that we have used
for this, by 46 percent this coming year in dual enrollment
classes, but providing additional support to help students as
they are working through regular courses to be successful with
that.
We have found that as we look at what gets in the way, that
we need to help them speed up time. Time is not a friend to
many students in completing the degree, so that is part--one
example.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Perna, what specific gaps do you see in available
research regarding the success of college access programs, and
what do you see as the repercussions of these gaps in terms of
best serving low-income and first-generation students?
Ms. Perna. Thank you, Chairwoman.
So one of the important gaps in the research has to do with
understanding what services work for which groups of students
in which particular context. So we have a lot of variation in
these programs, which is appropriate, given the number of
different types of needs and places in which these programs are
operating, and programs are doing a whole host of different
types of things.
There is some research around whether programs work, yes or
no, and that research generally shows on average that college
access programs, for example, do increase college enrollment.
But we know less about what it is within those programs that is
making the biggest difference.
Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. May, can you tell us a little bit more
about the Texas Completes initiatives? Have you worked with
other community colleges around Texas to share the best
practices for serving low-income and first-generation students?
And have you changed any of your strategies for serving these
students as a result of any collaboration that you had?
Mr. May. Madam Chair, the Texas Completes I think is unique
in that what these colleges have agreed to do is share data we
normally wouldn't share with each other and to benchmark
ourselves against each other in the process so that we can
really get a sense among many institutions as to what is
working and what is not working. And it has been quite
revealing and really has resulted in many changes within our
organization.
I mentioned developmental education, but also it has
impacted how we advise students, understanding that what
students are looking for is a clear pathway to not only a
degree, but a future, so we have changed that, restructuring,
in many cases, the--those types of support services that we
make available.
Two, we have--in our developmental education we have
invested--decreased the number of courses but increased
tutorial support and mentoring support to help students be
successful. As we have seen, that began to change the actual
numbers, with more students being successful.
Also, we have realized that we have got to do a better job
of encouraging students to go into STEM programs, and then what
gets in the way of them completing those. So we have seen the
completion in those areas go up dramatically as we have been
able to share data and compare programs.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
Dr. Alexander, you mentioned that you oversee--your program
oversees one TRIO program. Have you noticed any particular
regulatory burdens or programmatic constraints inherent in that
program that keep you from being as innovative as you can be
with your other AAP programs serving low-income students?
Mr. Alexander. Chairwoman Foxx, there are some glitches in
some of the TRIO regulation that keeps us from doing some of
the things that we do with some of the other programs.
Certainly, you know, some of the requirements of TRIO programs
are pretty specific as relates to activities, and some of the
things that we do with other programs allows us to use more
discretionary funding to enrich students' academic backgrounds.
And so that is probably the one area in which we have had
some challenges, but other than that, you know, our program has
been quite successful.
We have actually had a student support services program in
the past, as well, and some of the technicalities around that,
particularly with the prior experience points, sometimes can be
quite challenging, so--
Chairwoman Foxx. In the very short time I have left, could
you talk a little bit about your--the unique experiences of
working with transfer students?
Mr. Alexander. Certainly. We actually have a Center for
Community College Partnerships that works with 24 community
colleges in the L.A. Basin, and the idea behind that is to send
students who have transferred into UCLA back to their home
institutions to help other students with the application and
college readiness process.
We also have a Transfer Alliance Program, which our faculty
and our administrators work with community college faculty in
terms of getting their courses up to par so that students
actually can have transferrable courses that count towards a
degree when they enter the university. So it has been a
longstanding collaborative experience for us.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jeffries, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
And let me also thank the witnesses for your presence and
testimony here today.
Fifty years ago seemed throughout much of America there
were robust opportunities connected to manufacturing jobs and
factory jobs in much of the country that would allow an
American to have a pathway toward the middle class without
having to obtain a college education. Those days have
subsequently abandoned us. It seems many of those factory and
manufacturing jobs have moved overseas and aren't available to
Americans.
So we are in a situation now where increasingly, many of
the jobs in our economy are going to require some higher
education. I think in about 5 years I have seen statistics
suggesting that more than 65 percent of the jobs will actually
require a college degree.
And so given this changing sort of landscape that we find
ourselves in, maybe we will start with Dr. Perna, I mean, what
do you suggest that we do from a federal government perspective
in investing in the notion that we are going to have to better
prepare a wider number of Americans for successfully completing
a higher education in order for us as a country, I think, to
remain prepared for our folks to adequately succeed in the 21st
century economy?
Ms. Perna. Thank you, Congressman.
I think that you are asking exactly the right question. I
think that this is one of the most important issues facing our
country right now.
The data suggests that we cannot achieve the levels of
workforce readiness that are required without closing the gaps
that exist in educational opportunity. Unfortunately, there is
not a simple answer to do this, right, so we have a
comprehensive educational system, and there--the ways in which
differences in opportunity for high levels of education are
structured into our system begin early.
So we have profound differences in academic readiness that
happen in the K through 12 schools, so this is an important
structural issue that has to be addressed. We also have rising
cost of college attendance; you know, the financial barriers
are another section of--that has to be addressed. And we have
to improve students' ability to navigate the complex pathways
that we have.
So, you know, I really see those three different buckets.
The federal government plays a role, but other stakeholders
play a role as well. So I think that one role of the federal
government is to provide a catalyst and provide leadership to
signal the importance of these issues and try to--you know, I
think part of what we need to accomplish as a nation is
identify the roles and responsibilities of different players in
this complex process because there is no one simple, easy thing
to do.
Federal government certainly plays an important role
historically and needs to continue with regard to financial aid
and ensuring that college is affordable to all students. The
role with regard to college access programs is important, so in
the absence of the types of systemic and structural change in
the K through 12 academic system, we need to have these
additional support programs in place to help students navigate
our system.
And the same is true at the college level. Students need--
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
Dr. Alexander, in terms of the shift from a manufacturing,
factory-based economy of 50 years ago to, increasingly, an
economy anchored in the technology and innovation sectors, what
we have got right now, I believe the vacancy rate is somewhere
between 20 to 25 percent within the technology and innovation
economy across the country. Extraordinarily high vacancy rate.
Companies consistently tell us as members of Congress, ``We
can't find highly qualified workers to fill these reasonably
well-paying jobs even at the entry level, sometimes as high as
$70,000, $80,000.''
What do we need to do in order to tackle the preparation
gap for younger Americans? Because it seems like in these
sophisticated fields--science, technology, engineering,
mathematics, computer programming--it can't just start at the
higher education level. What needs to be done to create a
reasonable opportunity for success so that when they get to an
institution like UCLA they are prepared to tackle these STEM
fields?
Mr. Alexander. In the 10 minutes--10 seconds that I have,
actually 7, I agree with Dr. Perna that early preparation is
key. Early preparation, K-12, is critical in terms of
preparation for these careers that you are mentioning.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Jeffries. You seem to get
to the heart of the problem.
Dr. Adams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And let me thank all of the witnesses who are here today.
You know, we have talked, I guess, a lot about access and
affordability, and for me that is key. Without affordability,
access doesn't mean very much.
I am one of those first-generation--or I was--first-
generation, low-income students. I was able to survive and be
successful at the Ohio State University, get my Ph.D. there,
because of the North Carolina A&T, an HBCU that prepared me,
gave me the skills that I needed that I didn't have when I left
high school from New Jersey.
But I want to ask Dr. Cooper about Parent PLUS loans. This
program underwent some changes in 2011 that resulted in
students who were previously eligible and they were being
denied as a result of the changes.
It affected a lot of students, a number of them in North
Carolina, their ability to pay tuition. Dramatic effects on
HBCUs.
When the problem first surfaced in 2012, 400,000 students
nationwide were impacted; 28,000 HBCU students negatively
impacted.
So do you believe that the recent changes to this program
are enough to fix the problem created by the 2011 changes? And
if not, what do you believe we need to do to address this
problem?
Ms. Cooper. Thank you for your question.
I think it is unfortunate that the changes to the program
denied so many students immediate access to college. Many of
them had to drop out mid-semester. And certainly all
institutions had the impact of this change in the loan program,
but we saw it most dramatically at many of the HBCUs, as you
mentioned.
I think it is important that when we think about the
changes to the Parent PLUS loan program, as well as any changes
to financial aid, is that we keep them in the context of the
broader conversation of college affordability, which is a
complicated conversation--one that involves the states and
their role in supporting affordability, but also institutions
and their budgets, as well as the federal government.
So while the federal government certainly controls the
federal PLUS loan component of that, we have to have a
conversation with the other entities to make sure that college
costs are maintaining a more affordable level so that we don't
have the types of dramatic impacts that we saw when those
changes took place.
Ms. Adams. Yes. Thank you very much.
I have spent 40 years teaching at Bennett College in
Greensboro, so from another perspective, I certainly understand
the plight of these students, and just a few days ago launched
the bipartisan HBCU Caucus with my colleague, Bradley Byrne, so
we are going to be working hopefully across the aisle and
educating folks, because I think that is important.
So, Dr. Cooper, I want to ask you, in terms of the
demographics and the students who attend HBCUs. And we know
that they are different students, and perhaps if the same
demographic of students at HBCUs were at other schools in the--
we would have higher graduation rates.
So how would we then measure the success of HBCUs while
taking into account that they enroll a significant percentage
of low-income, first-generation students?
Ms. Cooper. That is a great question. Thank you.
I think it is absolutely correct that HBCUs enroll a number
of students who come with academic challenges. They enroll a
number of students who come with financial challenges. And
these institutions have historically been chronically
underfunded.
So they are really trying to do a lot with the most
neediest students.
My advice is to make sure that we are supporting these
institutions, but supporting them in ways that foster student
outcomes and better student outcomes. We want to make sure that
we are creating a viable pathway for these students to come
into the institution, to get a degree that gains--earns them
some value, but we also want them to graduate.
That is very important and it is a challenge for HBCUs
because of the demographic of that population, but it is not
impossible. And we have seen evidence of that in many
institutions across the country who are really, you know,
owning their student population and saying, ``We are going to
do whatever it takes to serve them well.''
So my advice to the federal government is to support that,
to show evidence of that, and to raise the visibility of those
institutions who are doing a tremendous job. We don't hear
about those stories enough.
Ms. Adams. One quick comment on Pell Grants and the need
for access to these funds year-round, if you could comment on
that?
Ms. Cooper. Could you please repeat that for me one more
time?
Ms. Adams. Pell Grants. We don't have them in the summer
anymore. What is your thought about it?
Ms. Cooper. The Pell Grant program is the centerpiece of
the financial aid program, and certainly we need them at all
these institutions, but minority-serving institutions that are
serving high numbers of students who have financial challenges
need them tremendously, so we have to make sure that we are
investing in that--
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. I am out of time.
Thank you, Madam.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Polis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Cooper, our discussion today and the comments and
questions really focused on creating opportunities and
encourage college completion among low-income and first-
generation students. Can you talk about how programs like
competency-based education and innovations in that area can
provide students the flexibility they need to complete their
degree and reduce costs and remove--reduce some of the cost
barriers?
Ms. Cooper. Certainly. Thank you.
So programs like competency-based education and a number of
these other types of innovations that we see and are hearing
more and more about certainly have some promise. I think that
we should continue to study them; we should continue to explore
the efficacy of them and how they are not only serving
students, but providing them with post-college outcomes that
give them long-lasting, positive effects.
Mr. Polis. And do you find that some of the challenges, in
particular with low-income students, revolve around scheduling,
having to work jobs, and that the flexibility that a
competency-based course, perhaps online, might have might make
it easier for them to matriculate?
Ms. Cooper. Sometimes that is the case. What we have often
found is that for a low-income and first-generation student the
best approach is usually either if not--if it can't be fully in
a classroom, some type of a hybrid model, where you have some
face time that is one-on-one with an instructor as well as the
use of technology.
Mr. Polis. And I also wanted to ask you about the
flexibility for Pell dollars. In my district, Colorado State
University saw the number of Pell-eligible students enrolling
in summer programs double when they were able to use their Pell
dollars over the summer term--more on-time graduations, a
number of effects. Unfortunately, the flexibility is gone and
students who depend on Pell dollars can only use them in the
fall and the spring.
What could Pell flexibility mean in particular for low-
income and first-generation students?
Ms. Cooper. We certainly know that the year-round Pell
program adds value to these low-income students. They are able
to enroll at a continuous pace and graduate more on time. So we
hope that those types of programs can come back.
Mr. Polis. And might that be an issue--and again, in
particular low-income students, might have to balance work and
a schedule might enable them to take one or two classes less
each semester, work a little bit more to support themselves,
take classes over summer to supplement that? Is that what can
help on--particularly on the low-income student end?
Ms. Cooper. It is the flexibility, as you say. It is the
flexibility that accommodates the nuances of their lifestyle.
Mr. Polis. And, Dr. May, if you care to comment on either
of those questions, but I did want to ask you an additional
one, as well.
In Colorado we have a very robust dual enrollment program,
not only removing some of the economic barriers to high-
schoolers getting college credit and associate's degrees, but
also having the sort of 360-degree, you know, support that a
public school K-12 side can offer. Many students graduate from
high school already having completed an associate's degree or
at least some college degrees.
Can you talk about the importance of dual enrollment
programs for low-income and first-generation students? And can
you discuss any models where dual enrollment students could
also be Pell eligible?
Mr. May. And absolutely. Just to point out, I was the
former president of Pueblo Community College and former
president of the Colorado Community College System, so I am
very familiar with the robust dual enrollment program leading
to many students in Colorado to graduate with both a high
school diploma and an associate degree. That is where we really
had the original data to prove that the initiative worked, that
if we could get students enrolling in college classes earlier,
that we increase dramatically the likelihood they would earn
not only bachelor's degree, but an advanced degree.
So I think that is a proven model that needs to be
expanded.
I would also, again, kind of reiterate early college high
school is a variation of that, and--which is really a more
tightly managed process for dual enrollment-type programs in
many ways. So they work, and we need to encourage it.
I would also, like I say, just want to comment on the
competency-based education. We do see great value, but where we
really see that value are for people who what we call have
already earned education equity, where they may have been in
the military or the workforce and they can bring that previous
education right into a college degree without having to retake
courses. Again, it accelerates time to degree and gives a
reward to an individual who has already been able to
demonstrate prior learning.
Mr. Polis. And what do you think we can do here? Obviously
a lot of the dual enrollment programs are locally driven. What
type of policies here could encourage and further allow the
flexibility for dual enrollment programs?
Mr. May. Well, I can tell you, the number one barrier--in
most states across the country for a dual enrollment program is
the issue of do the high schools get the funding for it or does
the community college get the funding for it? They end up in a
battle back and forth, and I think clarification that it really
is about the student, not about the institutions are the most
important aspect of that.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
Yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
Mr. Hinojosa, I recognize you for closing remarks.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
This hearing today has been very timely, as Congressman
Bobby Scott mentioned. I think that we are going through
appropriations bills right now and amongst the cuts that are
being discussed are on education and Pell Grants and funding
that each and every one of you has said has made a difference
in the last 4 years in increasing the enrollment and graduation
rate of men and women who in the past have not had the access
and affordability to higher education, and so that troubles me.
But I am hoping that both sides of the aisle will see their
way clear to continue the investment that increased, as I said,
in the past 6 years towards MSIs, because the demographics
indicate that Latinos and African-Americans make a majority of
the population in my state of Texas and many other states, and
that if we are going to have better quality of life for all
Americans, we must invest in education, everywhere from very
early pre-kinder all the way to what we are discussing here,
and that is the community colleges and the universities.
So we thank you for giving us current information that
could be used by the leadership of both sides of the aisle and
that, with your help, that we can continue to emphasize the
recommendations that were made by each one of you, because, as
Dr. Foxx said, she understands it and it is very important to
her since it impacted her the way that gave her the opportunity
to get a higher education, get a doctorate degree, and be
chairman of this subcommittee.
I have a bachelor's and a master's degree in business
administration and I think that I have really enjoyed my work
here 19 years on the Education Committee because I think that
we are making a difference in helping get education for all.
So again, we thank you for the work that you are doing, and
keep the hope up for those who listen to your remarks
everywhere you go to speak, because I think that they will be
encouraged by the growth in the population of particularly
women and minorities in higher education. And I just hope that
in the next 5 years that we can see many more women who are
graduating from colleges at a rate of about 55 percent,
compared to 45 percent for the men, can go on to serve on
corporate boards, to go on to head programs like you all have,
and that as a result of that we are going to be able to
continue to increase the investments in higher education.
And we thank you for being here.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
This has been, in my opinion, a very good hearing this
morning, not just because it is a subject that most of us who
are here this morning are very interested in, but I think
because you provided a lot of good information to us.
I alluded to it in the beginning, that I have been involved
with these programs for a long time. When I stop to think about
how long ago that was it is a little surprising to me.
Like Dr. Adams, I have been involved in the education
enterprise for a long time. I became involved with Upward Bound
in 1972, with Special Services in 1973.
I did that for 4 years and then I was in charge of academic
advising and orientation for all new students--transfers and
freshmen--at Appalachian State University. Worked for the
program for minority students who didn't meet admissions
requirements. And one of them I met the other day at the
installation of the new chancellor at Appalachian and he
really, really made me feel great about his experiences as a
result of being in that program. So I know that these programs
work in many cases.
Just before Mr. Jeffries said what he said, I had written
down to comment that your comments all point back to the
inadequate preparation that students have for going to college.
And so our problems begin much sooner than the time students
present themselves to college.
And here we are in the middle--I mean, in the 21st century,
and we have been talking about these issues, again, since I was
the director of Upward Bound and Special Services, and yet, we
are still talking about them in practically the same ways. I
will tell you, it is very frustrating to somebody like me.
And, Dr. Perna, while I am a big proponent of doing more
research, and particularly honing in on what works and what
doesn't work, in many cases we know what works and what doesn't
work.
You all represent--Dr. Alexander, Dr. May--you have shown
us. I mean, the programs I ran, I knew what worked and what
didn't work. But yet, somehow or another, we can't seem to get
that message spread across our culture.
Even Mr. Hinojosa, who is always looking for us to increase
funding, said in his program that--I mean, his comments--not
just a matter of money. It is a matter of tracking the
students. It is a matter working with the students. It is a
matter of showing them what is possible.
And it seems to me the examples you all have given,
particularly Dr. May, Dr. Alexander, and I think the research,
probably, that Dr. Perna is showing, is that the colleges have
to take some more responsibility in this area. And it is a
vested interest of theirs to do that. It is a vested interest
of the states to do this, to say, ``We want to invest more
money in our students and not just rely on the federal
government to do these things.''
One of the concerns I have always had is why we don't shift
more money into the programs that have proven their successes
and say, ``Okay, you have proven your success. Let's help you
more,'' and say, ``We want more role models.''
You know, Mr. Jeffries, again, alluded to the fact that we
have a lot of jobs out there. I believe, the staff tells me,
the latest number is 5.1 million jobs unfilled in this country
because people do not have the skills to fill those jobs.
What is wrong with us, as the greatest nation in the world,
that we can't figure out a system to match the people who are
unemployed with those jobs? I mean, it isn't a lack of money;
it is a lack of will somewhere.
And I think Dr. Perna pointed it out, too. Whose
responsibility--who is going to accept this responsibility and
how do we define these?
So it is enlightening to hear you all, but it is also a bit
frustrating because, again, we have been hearing these stories.
I mean, when I was the director of Upward Bound we talked about
this at every meeting--regional meeting: How can we get the
institutions to take more responsibility?
Again, seems like we haven't learned a lot in the last 40-
some years, or at least people haven't changed their behaviors
very much.
So I appreciate you all coming today more than I can tell
you, and you have been very kind to share your expertise with
us. And I want to thank all of you for your commitment in this
area to helping students and to make--and to doing what you can
to help other people understand what they can do to help these
students, who I think do want to succeed but they do need a lot
of guidance.
So thank you very much.
There being no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]