[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
KEEPING THE PELL GRANT PROMISE:
INCREASING ENROLLMENT, SUPPORTING SUCCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHER EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 29, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-175 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
MARK TAKANO, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JIM BANKS, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
LUCY McBATH, Georgia MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BURGESS OWENS, Utah
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan BOB GOOD, Virginia
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
MONDAIRE JONES, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Vice-Chair MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas Vacancy
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida, Chairwoman
MARK TAKANO, California GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington Ranking Member
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
MONDAIRE JONES, New York JIM BANKS, Indiana
KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina JAMES COMER, Kentucky
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas BOB GOOD, Virginia
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
ARIANO ESPAILLAT, New York DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia (ex officio)
(ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 29, 2021.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Murphy, Hon. Gregory F., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Higher
Education and Workforce Investment......................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Jones, Robert J., Ph.D., Chancellor, University of Illinois
Urbana-
Champaign.................................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Ortagus, Justin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Higher
Education Administration and Policy, Director of the
Institute of Higher Education,
University of Florida...................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Poliakoff, Michael B., Ph.D., President, American Council of
Trustees and Alumni........................................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Suriel, Darleny, Student, City College of New York........... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Additional Submissions:
Chairman Scott:
``Higher Education School Finance Inequity and Inadequacy
in
Virginia,'' ERN, July 2021............................. 61
``How to make good colleges want low-income students,''
The Hill, July 14, 2021................................ 88
Morelle, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York:
Prepared statement of the Association on Higher Education
and
Disability (AHEAD)..................................... 90
KEEPING THE PELL GRANT PROMISE:
INCREASING ENROLLMENT,
SUPPORTING SUCCESS
----------
Thursday, July 29, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Education and
Workforce Investment,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. via
Zoom, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Takano, Leger Fernandez,
Jones, Manning, Bowman, Pocan, Castro, Sherrill, Espaillat,
Courtney, Bonamici, Murphy, Grothman, Stefanik, Banks, Miller-
Meeks, Good, McClain, Harshbarger, Spartz and Foxx (ex
officio).
Also present: Representative Morelle.
Staff present: Katie Berger, Professional Staff; Jessica
Bowen, Professional Staff; Christian Haines, General Counsel;
Rasheedah Hasan, Chief Clerk; Sheila Havenner, Director of
Information Technology; Ariel Jona, Policy Associate; Andre
Lindsay, Policy Associate; Mariah Mowbray, Clerk/Special
Assistant to the Staff Director; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff
Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar,
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Claire Viall,
Professional Staff; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director;
Michael Davis, Minority Operations Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones,
Minority Director of Education and Human Resources Policy;
Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Eli Mitchell,
Minority Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority
Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy; and Brad
Thomas, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor.
Mr. Scott. We're ready to begin. The recording studio has
asked for a countdown before we begin. Five, four, three, two,
one. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Investment will come to order. Welcome everyone. We
know that Chair Wilson is unexpectedly unable to participate,
so I will be Chairing the Subcommittee this morning.
I note for the Subcommittee that pursuant to Rule 7 of the
Rules of the Committee that the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Morelle, will participate in today's hearing with the
understanding that his questions will come only after all
Members of the Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are
present, have had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
``Keeping the Pell Grant Promise: Increasing Enrollment,
Supporting Success.'' This is an entirely remote hearing. All
microphones will be kept muted as a general rule to avoid
unnecessary background noise.
Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting
themselves when they are recognized to speak, or when they wish
to seek recognition. I'll also ask Members to please identify
themselves before they speak. Members should keep their cameras
on while in the proceeding.
Members will be considered present in the proceeding when
they are visible on camera, and they will be considered not
present when they are not visible on camera. The only exception
to this is if they are experiencing technical difficulties and
inform the Committee staff of such difficulty.
If any Member is experiencing a technical difficulty during
the hearing, you should stay connected on the platform, make
sure you are muted, and use your phone to immediately call the
Committee's IT director whose number was provided in advance.
Should the Chair experience technical difficulty or need to
step away to vote on the floor, a majority Member is hereby
authorized to assume the gavel in the Chair's absence. This is
an entirely remote hearing and as such the Committee's hearing
room is officially closed.
Members who choose to sit with their individual devices in
the Committee room must wear headphones to avoid feedback,
echoes and distortion resulting from one or more persons on the
platform sitting in the same room. Members are also expected to
adhere to social distancing and safe healthcare guidelines,
including the use of masks, hand sanitizer and wiping down
their areas before and after their presence in the hearing
room.
In order to ensure that the Committee's five-minute rule is
adhered to the staff is keeping track of a timer, which will
appear in its own thumbnail picture named timer, excuse me
001_timer. There will be no official one-minute warning, but I
believe the color of the background may change at one minute to
give an indication that time is coming to an end.
The field timer will show a blinking light when time is up.
Members and witnesses are asked to wrap up promptly when their
time has expired. A roll call is not necessary to establish a
quorum, so to get to the witnesses first, that process will be
omitted.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c) opening statements are
limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to
hear from the witnesses sooner and provides all Members with
adequate time to ask questions. I will now recognize myself for
the purpose of making an opening statement.
Today we're meeting to examine trends related to Pell
eligible students' access to public four-year institutions. The
State and institutional roles in helping students succeed, and
how Federal legislation could help. Each person in this country
deserves access to an affordable high-quality, higher
education, and as we have consistently established, a high-
quality post-secondary degree remains the surest pathway to
financial security and a rewarding career.
In fact, that access is what President Johnson said when he
signed the Higher Education Act in 1965. He said that the law
means that a high school senior anywhere in this great land of
ours can apply to any college or university in any of the 50
states and not be turned away because the family is poor.
And that's the way it was back then when the Pell Grant was
covering about 80 percent of the cost of college education. Now
it's covering about 30 percent of the costs of a higher
education, and that's one of the reasons we have the problems
we have now. But for decades Pell Grants and public
institutions have been critical to helping students from low-
income backgrounds enroll in college and reach their full
potential.
However, growing research reveals that there are still too
many public institutions with student bodies that do not
reflect the communities they're established to serve. Even
institutions that do enroll Pell eligible students may not
provide the support the students need to complete their
degrees.
According to research from 2018, only a quarter of the
institutions with higher-than-average Pell enrollment actually
graduated more than half the students. Unfortunately, the
campus closures, the inequitable access to remote learning
during the pandemic created new barriers to low-income
students.
In fact the Brookings Institute found that ``Students from
households making less than $75,000.00 per year were almost
twice as likely to forego college during the pandemic.'' During
the last year Congress has taken decisive action to help
institutions and students weather the pandemic.
We passed three COVID relief packages providing more than
75 billion dollars to help institutions stay afloat, reopen
their campuses safely, and address the urgent needs of
students. We also addressed Pell Grant award amounts for
millions of current recipients, and expanded eligibility for
hundreds of thousands of others, including incarcerated
students. And while these packages have saved our higher
education system from financial collapse, we know that we must
address the root causes behind persistent various and post-
secondary degrees--namely chronic State disinvestment in higher
education.
Since the Great Recession this widespread trend has led
some public institutions to rely on revenue from wealthy out-
of-State students, while also raising tuition and further
pushing costs onto students and families. State disinvestment
has also left many institutions unable to provide the services
and resources its students need to complete their education.
Today our expert witnesses will help us examine bold,
legislative initiatives to lower the costs of college, and
support student success. We'll discuss the Pell Grant
Preservation and Expansion Act, a bill that Congressman Pocan
and I introduced, which will double the maximum Pell Grant
award, and tie future increases to inflation.
Over the years the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has
dramatically declined, covering the smallest share of college
costs in four decades. Passing this long-standing higher
education priority, will not only boost Pell Grant awards, but
also expand eligibility for these critical resources.
We must also pursue investments in higher education like
those included in the American Families Plan. The President's
proposal calls for investing in stronger Pell Grant awards,
tuition free community college, reduced costs at underresourced
institutions, including HBCUs and other MSIs, and dedicated
funding to ensure institutions can help students complete their
degrees.
As we will discuss today, these steps are critical to
building back a better higher education system for our Nation's
students. If we fail to make these investments, we will further
contribute to our higher education system in which only wealthy
Americans can afford to go to college.
However, if we act now, we can make significant progress
toward ensuring that all students have access to the life
changing benefits that come with a quality, college education.
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today, and now
recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from
North Carolina, Dr. Murphy for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
[The statement of Chairman Scott follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor
Today we are meeting to examine trends related to Pell eligible
students' access to public four-year institutions, the State and
institutional roles in helping students succeed, and how Federal
legislation could help.
Each person in this country deserves access to an affordable, high-
quality higher education. As we have consistently established, a high-
quality postsecondary degree remains the surest pathway to financial
security and a rewarding career.
In fact, that access is what President Johnson said when he signed
the Higher Education Act in 1965. He said that the law means that: ``a
high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours, can apply to
any college or any university, in any of the 50 states, and not be
turned away because [their] family is poor.''
That's the way it was back then when the Pell Grant was covering
about 80 percent of the cost of college education and now it's covering
about 30 percent of the costs of higher education, and that's one of
the reasons we have the problems we have now.
For decades, Pell Grants and public institutions have been critical
to helping students from low-income backgrounds enroll in college and
reach their full potential.
However, growing research reveals that there are still too many
public institutions with student bodies that do not reflect the
communities they were established to serve.
Even institutions that do enroll Pell-eligible students may not
provide the support students need to complete their degrees. According
to research from 2018, only a quarter of institutions with higher-than-
average Pell enrollment actually graduated more than half of these
students.
Unfortunately, the campus closures and inequitable access to remote
learning during the pandemic created new barriers for low-income
students. In fact, the Brookings Institute found that ``students from
households making less than $75,000 per year were almost twice as
likely to forego college'' during the pandemic.
Over the last year, Congress has taken decisive action to help
institutions and students weather the pandemic. We passed three COVID
relief packages, providing more than
$75 billion to help institutions stay afloat, reopen their campuses
safely, and address the urgent needs of students.
We also increased Pell Grant award amounts for millions of current
recipients and expanded eligibility for hundreds of thousands of
students, including incarcerated students.
While these packages may have saved our higher education system
from financial collapse, we know that we must address the root causes
behind persistent barriers to postsecondary degrees-namely chronic
State disinvestment in higher education.
Since the Great Recession, this widespread trend has led some
public institutions to rely on revenue from wealthy, out-of-State
students while also raising tuition and further pushing costs onto
students and families. State disinvestment has also left many
institutions unable to provide the services and resources that students
need to complete their education.
Today, our expert witnesses will help us examine bold legislative
solutions to lower the cost of college and support student success.
We will discuss the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act, a
bill that Congressman Pocan and I introduced, which would double the
maximum Pell Grant award and tie future increases to inflation. Over
the years, the purchasing power of Pell Grants has dramatically
declined, covering the smallest share of college costs in four decades.
By passing this long-standing higher education priority, we would not
only boost Pell Grant awards but also expand eligibility for these
critical resources.
We must also pursue investments in higher education like those
included in the American Families Plan. The President's proposal calls
for investing in:
Stronger Pell Grant awards,
Tuition-free community college,
Reduced costs at underresourced institutions, including
HBCUs and other MSIs, and
Dedicated funding to ensure institutions can help students complete
their degrees.
As we will discuss today, these steps are critical to building back
a better higher education system for our Nation's students. If we fail
to make these investments, we will further contribute to a higher
education system in which only wealthy Americans can afford to go to
college. However, if we act now, we can make significant progress
toward ensuring that all students have access to the lifechanging
benefits that come with a quality college degree.
Thank you, again, to our witnesses for being with us. I now
recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from North
Carolina, Dr. Murphy, for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr., Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses that we have today. The Pell Grant program is the
cornerstone of Federal student aid. Every year six and a half
million Americans pursue secondary education with the help of
the Pell Grant.
Created in 1972 the Grant Program enhances the Higher
Education Act mission--to increase access to college. Eligible
undergraduate students, most of whom come from extremely low-
income families, use the voucher-like grant to enroll in a
participating program in a college or university of their
choice.
Historical numbers demonstrate the program's success in
encouraging people to consider post-secondary education. In
1972, 49 percent of high school graduates enrolled in college.
Today that number is at 67 percent. Congress created a very
generous Federal student aid system.
Even adjusted for inflation, the program--that Pell Grant
award, is six and a half thousand dollars has never been
higher. One could reasonably assume that the college has never
been more affordable for Pell Grant recipients. Sadly, the
truth is that colleges and universities, not the students, are
the major beneficiaries of the Pell Grant program.
In a 20-year period from 1997 to 2017, the Pell Grant
increased 44 percent in real terms, yet the maximum Pell Grant
as a percentage of published prices, went from covering 94
percent of tuition and fees in 2004 at four-year colleges, to
61 percent in 2015.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennett believed that
the Federal Student Aid Program allows institutions of post-
secondary education to raise their prices because the
institutions know that widely available Federal loan and grant
subsidies will cushion the blow of increased consumer cost.
In fact, I have written extensively on administrative
bloat, not only as a Member of Congress, but also as I
witnessed the explosion of administrative bloat when I was a
Member of the Board of Trustees at Davidson College. This may
have just been a hypothesis when he made the claim in 1987,
however newly available data now proves that the Bennett
hypothesis was correct. A recent analysis by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York examined the link between student aid
and college costs.
The report found a pass-through effect of Pell Grant awards
and published tuition prices. In other words, every dollar the
Federal Government increased the student aid, college raises
their prices by an incremental amount. Additional dollars
allocated to poor students will eventually wind up captured by
these institutions.
Congress wanted to subsidize students but wound-up
subsidizing institutions. Schools are taking advantage of the
taxpayers' charity. This Committee should be concerned about
the unintentional consequences of a well-intentioned student
aid policy--republicans and democrats goal to make college more
affordable for all families has led to skyrocketing costs.
We cannot afford to perpetuate a system trapped in a
vicious Bennett hypothesis cycle. There is no question that the
promise of higher education is broken. Eventually, colleges and
universities must be held accountable for their actions and
justify their outrageous prices.
Congress must recalibrate the Federal Student Aid Program
to account for revenue hungry actions of institutions.
Institutions' focus on increasing revenue means less time and
fewer resources are spent on actual student success
initiatives. Millions of Pell Grant recipients have failed to
earn a post-secondary credential. The four-year completion rate
for all Baccalaureate degree students is a paltry 44 percent.
The costs of failing to complete on time are enormous. Each
additional year of school in a public four-year college costs
over $60,000.00 after accounting for school expenses and lost
wages. It is not only low-income students suffering from failed
higher educational policy.
Even if the students do graduate, there are serious
questions about the value of education that they receive. The
2018 job outlook survey conducted by the National Association
of Colleges and Employers found that almost 80 percent of
students considered themselves proficient at oral and written
communications, but employers only thought 40 percent of the
students were competent communicators.
Pumping additional dollars into the Pell Grant problem will
not solve the serious underlying issues plaguing the higher
education sector. Comprehensive reform of the HEA's
accountability framework will do more to help students in the
long-term, than just pouring money into a failing system.
Republicans know that there are many paths to life-long
success. The commanding heights of the American culture
pressure too many people into narrow Baccalaureate degree
pipelines. The Committee's primary focus should be setting up
Pell Grant recipients for posterity, no matter the type of
educational pathway they choose. Access to college matters, but
a Baccalaureate isn't the only option for looking to live
fulfilling lives.
We must fix a broken system, not by throwing more money at
it, but demanding financial accountability by higher
educational systems. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses on how to fix our flawed post-educational--post-
secondary educational policies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Gregory F. Murphy, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Investment
The Pell Grant program is the cornerstone of Federal student aid.
Every year over 6.5 million Americans pursue postsecondary education
with the help of the Pell Grant. Created in 1972, the Pell Grant
program advances the Higher Education Act's (HEA) mission to increase
access to college.
Eligible undergraduate students, most of whom come from extremely
low-income families, use the voucher-like grant to enroll in a
participating program at a college or university of their choice.
Historical enrollment numbers demonstrate the program's success in
encouraging people to consider postsecondary education. In 1972, 49
percent of recent high school graduates enrolled in college. Today,
that number stands at almost 67 percent.
Congress created a generous Federal student aid system. Even
adjusted for inflation, the maximum Pell Grant award of $6,495 has
never been higher.
One could reasonably assume this means that college has never been
more affordable for Pell Grant recipients. Sadly, the truth is that
colleges and universities, not the students, are the major
beneficiaries of the Pell Grant program.
In a 20-year period from 1997 to 2017, the Pell grant increased 44
percent in real terms. Yet the maximum Pell Grant, as a percentage of
published prices, went from covering 94 percent of tuition and fees at
public four-year colleges in 2000 to 61 percent in 2015.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennett believed that the
Federal student aid program allows institutions of postsecondary
education to raise their prices because the institutions know widely
available Federal loan and grant subsidies will cushion the blow of
increased consumer costs.
That may have just been a hypothesis when he made that claim in
1987, but newly available data now proves the Bennett Hypothesis was
correct. A recent analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
examined the link between student aid and college costs. The report
found a pass-through effect of Pell Grant award amounts and published
tuition prices. In other words, for every dollar the Federal Government
increases student aid, colleges raise their prices by an incremental
amount.
Additional dollars allocated to poor students will eventually wind
up captured by institutions. Congress wanted to subsidize students but
wound up subsidizing institutions. Schools are taking advantage of the
taxpayers' charity.
This Committee should be concerned about the unintentional
consequences of well-intentioned student aid policies. Republicans' and
Democrats' goal to make college more affordable for all families has
led to skyrocketing college costs.
We cannot afford to perpetuate a system trapped in a vicious
Bennett Hypothesis cycle. There is no question that the promise of
higher education is broken. Eventually, colleges and universities must
be held accountable for their actions and justify their outrageous
prices. Congress must recalibrate the Federal student aid system to
account for the revenue-hungry actions of institutions.
Institutions' focus on increasing revenue means less time and fewer
resources are spent on student success initiatives. Millions of Pell
Grant recipients have failed to earn a postsecondary credential. The
four-year completion rate for all baccalaureate degree students is a
paltry
44 percent. The costs of failing to complete on time are enormous.
Each additional year of school in a public four-year college costs over
$60,000 after accounting for school expenses and lost wages.
It is not only low-income students suffering from failed higher
education
policy. Even if students do graduate, there are serious questions
about the value of the education received. A 2018 Job Outlook Survey
conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found
almost 80 percent of students considered themselves proficient at oral
and written communications, but employers thought only 41 percent of
their students were competent communicators.
Pumping additional dollars into the Pell Grant program will not
solve these serious underlying issues plaguing the higher education
sector. Comprehensive reform of the HEA's accountability framework will
do more to help students in the long term than just pouring money into
a failing system.
Republicans know there are many paths to lifelong success. The
commanding heights of American culture pressure too many people into a
narrow baccalaureate-degree pipeline. The Committee's primary focus
should be on setting up Pell Grant recipients for prosperity no matter
the type of educational pathway they choose. Access to college matters,
but a baccalaureate degree isn't the only option for those looking to
live fulfilling lives.
We must fix a broken system, not by throwing more money at it, but
by demanding financial accountability from our higher education
systems.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on how we can fix our
flawed postsecondary education policies.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I will now introduce our witnesses.
First Dr. Justin Ortagus is an Associate Professor of Higher
Education and administration policy, and Director of the
Institute of Higher Education at the University of Florida. He
holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, and a Master of
Education and educational leadership from the University of
Florida, and a Ph.D. in higher education from Penn State
University. He's a former Pell Grant recipient.
Dr. Robert J. Jones became Chancellor of the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2016. Prior to becoming
Chancellor he served as President of the University at Albany
State, Albany, State University of New York, or SUNY. He earned
a bachelor's degree from Fort Valley State College, a master's
degree in crops, physiology from the University of Georgia, and
a Doctorate in crop physiology from the University of Missouri
in Columbia.
Dr. Michael Poliakoff became President of the American
Council of Trustees and Alumni, or ACTA in 2016. Prior to
becoming President he served as Vice President of Policy at
ACTA. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Yale University,
and a Ph.D. in classical studies from the University of
Michigan.
I will now yield to my friend from New York who's asked to
introduce our last witness, the gentleman from New York Mr.
Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman Scott. It has my
pleasure to introduce Darleny Suriel, who I am proud to say is
an Afro-Latina of Dominican descent. She is a student at City
College where I taught as an adjunct professor, Mr. Chairman,
right in Harlem, right in Hamilton Heights in the 13th
congressional District.
And she is a current Pell Grant recipient. She previously
attended SUNY Purchase and Borough of Manhattan Community
College where she completed her associate degree in December
2020. She also works as a policy assistant for degrees at NYC
at the Goddard Riverside Center. I know very well, when I was a
Member of the State Senate, I represented the Columbus Avenue
area in the 80's where Goddard Riverside provides those
critical services.
And she focuses on equity and success in post-secondary
education completion. I look forward to learning a great deal
from Ms. Suriel. She will instruct us and educate us all as she
is an important voice in this debate, and I thank you Mr.
Chairman for giving me the opportunity to introduce her. I
yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And I want to welcome all of our
witnesses. We appreciate them for participating today and look
forward to their testimony. We will remind the witnesses that
we have your written statements, and they will appear in full
in the hearing record.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d), and Committee practice,
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a five
minute summary of your written statement. But before you begin
your testimony, please remember to unmute your microphone.
During your testimony staff will be keeping track of time, and
a light will blink when time is up.
Please be attentive to the time, and wrap up when your time
is over, and then remute your microphone. If any of you
experience technical difficulties during your testimony, or
later during the hearing, you should stay connected on the
platform, make sure you are muted and use your telephone to
immediately call the Committee's IT director whose number was
provided to you in advance.
We will let all the witnesses make their presentations, and
then we'll move to Member questions. When answering questions
please remember to unmute your microphone. Witnesses are aware
of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the
Subcommittee, so we will now proceed directly to their
testimony, and we will begin with Dr. Ortagus. Dr. Ortagus
you're recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN ORTAGUS, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY AND
DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Mr. Ortagus. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Murphy, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My personal journey from Pell Grant recipient to
college professor is a testament to how need-based aid can
change the trajectory of student's lives.
The Pell Grant program is designed to increase educational
attainment for lower income individuals who may not reap the
benefits of a college education otherwise. Unfortunately, the
purchasing power of the Pell Grant has diminished over time.
The maximum Pell Grant previously covered 79 percent of the
average costs of attending a public four-year institution, but
today's Pell Grant only covers 29 percent.
The college enrollment rates of individuals with low-income
families are significantly lower than their upper-and middle-
income peers, particularly among students of color and public
flagship universities. Even after controlling for academic
ability, college enrollment rates for high school graduates
from the lowest earning families are 30 percentage points lower
than high school graduates from the highest earning families.
The United States had a problem with low enrollment among
low-income students before the COVID-19 pandemic, but that
problem has intensified over the past 18 months. The number of
high school graduates who enrolled in college decreased by 6.8
percent in 2020.
But decreases in college enrollment numbers were 2.3 times
greater for students from low-income high schools when compared
to students from higher income high schools, with the sharpest
enrollment declines at public colleges and universities. So why
aren't more low-income students obtaining the benefits of
college?
Generally speaking there are two types of barriers that
prevent low-income students from enrolling in college--
informational barriers and financial barriers. Despite the
importance of removing informational barriers by simplifying
and streamlining the admissions and financial aid processes,
low-income student barriers are rooted in their financial
distress, and the most effective policy solutions will directly
address that reality by increasing need-based financial aid,
and thereby reducing unmet financial need.
State disinvestments in higher education are another
important consideration in this conversation. Nationally, State
appropriations for higher education remain 6 percent below
Fiscal Year 2008 levels, and 12 states are at least 20 percent
below their pre-recession levels. This general trend has played
a part in rising tuition at public four-year institutions, and
the affordability crisis facing low-income students.
Numerous studies have shown the positive impact of need
based financial aid on low-income students' likelihood of
college enrollment, persistence, and degree completion. In one
rigorous study, a team of researchers found that providing Pell
Grant recipients with access to additional need-based aid,
increased their likelihood of going to college, graduating from
college, and earning higher wages in the labor market.
That same study shows that increases in need-based aid
represent a good investment that pays for itself several times
over, given that estimated increases will allow the government
to fully recoup its investment within 10 years.
Current and future investments, the conversations and
efforts designed to improve college access and student success
among low-income students should be informed by rigorous
evidence, and data-informed best practices.
One example is the HAIL Scholarship at the University of
Michigan, which increased application rates by 42 percentage
points, and enrollment rates by 15 percentage points among
high-achieving low-income students, and I provide details of
that intervention in my written testimony.
Another example is the CUNY ASAP model, reflecting a
comprehensive approach to student support. CUNY ASAP
participants were nearly twice as likely to graduate after 3
years when compared to their peers not participating in the
program.
The evidence I've outlined provides a clear path forward.
Given that the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has decreased
over time, the Federal Government could substantially increase
its investment in the Pell Grant to increase access for low-
income students.
In addition, low-income students benefit greatly from
affordability or tuition-free guarantees, given their
considerable financial hardships. The academic literature
offers compelling evidence of the importance of addressing both
informational and financial barriers when seeking to increase
access and support success in higher education.
The American Families Plan can offer much needed funding to
underresourced institutions serving a disproportionate share of
low-income students, and students of color. This type of
targeted investment, evidence-based retention and degree
completion strategies can extend the Federal policy
conversation beyond college access to improving student
success. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortagus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Justin Ortagus
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Dr. Jones?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. JONES, Ph.D., CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Murphy and Members of the Subcommittee for holding this
hearing, and for inviting me to testify on behalf of the
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. In my written
testimony I noted that the Pell Grant augments our own annual
investment of more than 145 million of institutional aid, and I
shared some best practices and some lessons that we've learned
in Illinois, as we've increased our enrollment and graduation
rates of Pell eligible students.
These include the Illinois Promise, and the Illinois
Commitment, our free attendance and free tuition programs for
low-income families, and those below the medium income rate,
plus some of our earlier engagement recruitment programs, and
our student success efforts that has led to a graduation rate
that is nearly 40 percent above the national average.
For my opening remarks my message is very short and very
simple. I am here to advocate in the strongest possible way for
an increase in Pell Federal funding for expansion of the number
of families that are able to access these critically important
grants, and as a Member of the Association of American
Universities, and the Association of Public and Land Grant
University, my university is fully supportive of the Double the
Pell Campaign.
The Pell program is one of the most strategic, efficient,
flexible Federal investments that we can make in our Nation's
educational, economic, and social development. This is a
professional assessment, but it also is deeply rooted in my own
personal experiences.
Yes, I am the Chancellor of an original land grant
university, and we are the flagship university in our State. We
enroll more than 52,000 students and award more than 13,000
undergraduate, and graduate degrees each year, more than one in
five of our freshman are first generation students.
I grew up as the child of a sharecropper in southwestern
Georgia during the Jim Crow Era. I was the first in my family
to attend college. Scholarships or Pell Grants were not readily
accessible for kids like me, so I worked full-time jobs in high
school to save enough money to attend Fort Valley State
College, where I earned my undergraduate degree, and while
finishing a master's degree at University of Georgia.
I received an offer from the University of Missouri to
pursue a Ph.D. with the support of the George Washington Carver
Fellowship. That fellowship changed everything for me forever.
It paid more than $7,000.00 a year, more money than I had ever
earned, and it was also the first time I could be a student
without working part-time jobs to support my studies.
So removing that financial obstacle was a life and career
changing opportunity. In so many ways I was just lucky. But it
is unacceptable today that college attainment, success, and all
of the advantages that come with a degree should come down to a
matter of luck for anyone in our country.
Financial need is the one common, easily identifiable,
fully stoppable obstacle to college access, success, post-
college opportunities, for too many. It is a particularly acute
crisis for families living on the economic margins in our
country. Double the Pell, triple it even. I just ask that you
act now. There is an urgency here every day that we delay,
Pell's purchasing power is further eroded. Educational access
will be the driver of our recovery and our ability to rebuild
from this devasting COVID-19 pandemic.
We have a rare window of opportunity right now to expand
the program that will immediately change the lives for millions
of families in this country. By increasing overall funding,
increasing the maximum grant, and broadening access, you give
our Nation's universities more resources and more flexibility
to tailor programs in ways that are best in line with the needs
of our respective states, and the families you represent.
You significantly reduce personal and family financial
constraints as an obstacle to college attendance. You
dramatically improve the retention and the graduation rates of
low-income and under-represented students once they enter
college and university, and you significantly reduce the
overall debt of those students when they graduate.
I fully understand that when it comes to Federal funding,
Congress will always be challenged to balance the many
legitimate and important priorities, but I would argue that the
math in this case is simple, and overwhelmingly convincing. One
program, more college access, more college graduates, less
student debt. So in short by strengthening the Pell Grant you
create a more competitive, equitable, productive workforce to
meet the needs of our 21st Century society.
So thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to responding to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert J. Jones
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Dr. Poliakoff.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. POLIAKOFF, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI
Mr. Poliakoff. I thank Representative Scott, Ranking Member
Murphy, and the Members of this Subcommittee for the
opportunity to address the critical issue of Pell Grants and
student success. For over 25 years the American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, ACTA for short, has worked to ensure that
America's students receive an intellectually rich high-quality
college education, at an affordable price.
The Pell Grant has been the cornerstone of America's
investment in college financial aid for nearly 50 years. It has
been an engine of access to higher education. But for Pell
Grants fully to realize their promise they need greater
accountability. The leading education journal Inside Higher Ed
States, the value of the Pell Grant hasn't kept up with the
cost of college, and we must ask why not.
The price of college is simply just too high. The average
student that borrows to fund a college education graduates with
over $39,000.00 of debt. Simply increasing Federal funding will
not solve this issue. During the Great Recession, the Federal
Government helped Americans return to college. The government
increased the borrowing limit for undergraduates, while the
Recovery Act increased the maximum Pell Grant and expanded
eligibility. From 2007 to 2010, Pell Grant expenditures rose
from nearly 16 billion to 37 billion, and student loans grew
from almost 75 billion to over 110 billion.
Despite increased Federal aid, growth and tuition costs
outpaced both aid and discounting, forcing families to pay more
and increasing the amount of student loan debt. Some states saw
tuition fees at four-year public institutions, rise by an
average of $2,800.00.
After adjusting for inflation, tuition at four-year public
institutions rose 19 percent during the recession. ACTA
surveyed over 1,500 public and private non-profit institutions
and found that despite the decrease in certain sources of
revenue following the recession, colleges and universities made
no comparable cuts in spending.
Schools had a choice, cut spending or charge students more,
and the majority chose the latter. We must recognize that the
student debt crisis is fundamentally a spending crisis.
Furthermore, a greater portion of this spending is going to
non-instructional sources such as student services,
administration, and construction.
On this last point colleges and universities have been
profligate. Our research at top ranked public universities
found that the overwhelming majority failed to meet their
state's minimum expectations for hours of classroom use, but
they built new spaces. In 2015 alone, colleges and universities
spent 11.5 billion on the construction and maintenance of 21
million square feet of new space.
We must face the music. In total the United States spends
an average of about $30,000.00 per student per year on higher
education, a figure nearly twice the average of other developed
nations. Spending has not brought us the outcomes that we
should expect.
Worse than the spike in tuition that followed the increases
in loan limits and Pell Grants is the fact that the completion
rates for students who enrolled in college in 2008, 9 and 10,
fell. This brings us to the second crucial issue for any Pell
Grant legislation--the lack of oversight at the institutional
level.
Are schools doing enough to ensure that Pell students
receive the academic support they need to graduate? When the
data finally became available in 2017, an analysis by Third
Way, referenced by Representative Scott, revealed that Pell
students graduate at a rate 18 percentage points lower than
their non-Pell peers.
214 institutions have Pell graduation rates lower than 25
percent. A Pell Grant should not be allowed so often to be a
ticket to nowhere. Finally, too often policy proposals push
students toward four-year degrees, a position which reveals a
lack of respect for the value of community colleges and career
education.
Please look carefully at any proposal that fails to examine
how colleges are spending Federal funds. We recommend scrutiny
of the completion rates at institutions that receive Pell Grant
students, and echo a suggestion made by Third Way skin in the
game.
Institutions with poor Pell Grant completion rates should
be held accountable. And we ask Congress to incentivize
creative initiatives to lower cost as Representative Murphy
suggested. For example, aforementioned consortia for
instructional delivery, year-round use of campus, baccalaureate
degrees in 90, rather than 120 credit hours.
Increasing the size of the Pell Grant may well be
appropriate, but only if accompanied by rigorous new
accountability measures and metrics. Thank you for the
opportunity to be with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poliakoff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael B. Poliakoff
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And last but not least, Ms. Suriel.
DARLENY SURIEL, STUDENT, CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Suriel. Good morning, Chair Scott, Ranking Member
Murphy, and Members of the U.S. Higher Education and Workforce
Investment Subcommittee. My name is Darleny Suriel. I'm a
first-generation Afro-Dominican immigrant from the Bronx, and a
senior at the City College of New York.
I also work at DegreesNYC, a collective impact movement,
working toward education equity in New York City. I'm here to
speak to you today about my college experience, and how the
Pell Grant has contributed positively to my role to success.
I have had an unconventional post-secondary journey through
three public academic institutions--SUNY Purchase College,
CUNY's Borough of Manhattan Community College, and CUNY City
College where I am currently pursuing my bachelor's degree. My
academic journey has included many personal, financial, and
systemic challenges.
My experience is similar to a third of college students
nationwide who have transferred during their college career.
The Pell Grant has supported students like me as we navigate
through these institutions. Thanks to the Pell Grant, I have
had access to high-quality education without worrying about
accumulating significant debt.
When I began my college career at SUNY Purchase, I was
fortunate enough to be eligible for the SUNY Educational
Opportunity Program, EOP, which offers students' academic and
financial support. However, even with help from EOP and the
Pell Grant, I did not have enough to fully cover my room and
board.
I still had to take out a loan of over $5,000.00 while
struggling to afford costs above tuition. At the time my family
could only afford to give me $40.00 for my fall semester, so I
had no choice but to get a part-time job in addition to my work
study job.
Starting college as a first-generation freshman was a
challenging and intimidating transition for me. I am thankful
for Pell because it's the reason I can afford to go to college,
however, I do believe increasing Pell would alleviate some of
the financial burdens students like me face.
After my first year at Purchase, I transferred to Borough
of Manhattan Community College in New York City. While
attending BMCC as a commuter, I am no longer qualified for an
opportunity program, which meant that my schoolbooks would not
be covered by CUNY.
As a BMCC student, I also encountered costs above tuition
that were significantly higher than at Purchase. I had to buy
weekly Metro cards that would cost me over $500.00 a semester.
I remember feeling frustrated because in high school I was
eligible for free school Metro cards due to my socioeconomic
status, but that changed once I entered college, even though my
financial circumstances did not.
There were days where I had to miss class because I could
not afford a Metro card. In addition to being a full-time
student, I had to take on a part-time job at Best Buy to afford
these non-tuition expenses. I worked almost 30 hours weekly.
Half of my paycheck went to these expenses, while the other
half went to my household.
College students need to focus on their education without
having to stress out about working long and strenuous shifts,
to be able to afford transportation, food, or the academic
resources they need to excel academically. The pandemic has
shined a light on the food insecurity, housing insecurity,
digital insecurity, and unemployment that college students are
experiencing at alarming rates.
Almost half of the college student population in this
country deals with food insecurity. These financial obstacles
can negatively impact the student's academic performance, and
ability to graduate on time. When I transferred to City
College, I was alleviated from many of the costs associated
with being a commuter student due to remote learning.
My school cafeteria was not my refrigerator, and my school
transportation was a Zoom link. If the spring 2021 semester
would not have been remote, my Pell Grant would not have been
enough to cover these costs. My 2021 spring semester Pell
amount was barely enough to cover my tuition. I still had to
pay $300.00 out of pocket.
If I had gone to school in person, my expenses above
tuition would have exceeded $1,000.00. I'm a full-time student,
a part-time worker, and a caretaker for my two siblings with
disabilities. My mother and I are the only financial providers
of our household. I do not have the privilege of being able to
solely focus on my academics due to these financial
responsibilities.
As I prepare to go back to in-person learning next month, I
worry that my Pell Grant would not be enough to cover my
tuition, let alone my above tuition expenses. I also worry that
I will run out of Pell before attaining my bachelor's degree
due to my non-traditional college journey.
Expanding Pell would allow college students the opportunity
to trust their academic journey, instead of treating college as
a race that they must complete in four-years, or risk losing
their financial aid. The Pell Grant must be doubled so that it
can reflect the current needs of college students.
About 30 percent of college students graduate at the
traditional four-year rate compared to almost 60 percent at a
6-year rate. Expanding the Pell Grant acknowledges this reality
and can support students as they pursue a post-secondary
degree.
Education is supposed to be the great equalizer in this
country, but how can that be so if every student does not have
an equal chance of affording a college education? The cost of
college is more than tuition. Therefore, the amount of Pell
college students receive should cover more than just tuition.
Passing the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act can
increase enrollment and degree completion amongst college
students.
These students are potential CEOs, doctors, lawyers,
congressional leaders, and even Presidents, who just need their
national leaders to believe in them enough to invest in them.
We are the future of this country's economy and workforce.
Doubling the Pell Grant would not only be an investment in the
education of young college students, it would also be an
investment in the future of this country. Thank you for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Suriel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darleny Suriel
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you. And under Committee Rule
9(a) we will now question witnesses under the five-minute rule.
I will be recognizing Committee Members in seniority order.
Again, to ensure the Member's five-minute rule is adhered to,
staff will be keeping track of time and the timer will show a
blinking light when time is expired, so please be attentive to
wrap up when your time has expired, and remute your microphone.
And the first questioner is on the way to the White House
for a special event, but still wanted to participate. The
gentlemen from California Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is
for Mr. Ortagus. Mr. Ortagus, are you aware of any studies
which validate the Bennett hypothesis that was mentioned in the
Ranking Member's opening comments?
Mr. Ortagus. Yes, thank you for your question. There are
studies that validate the Bennett hypothesis, but they're
restricted to for-profit universities. The Bennett hypothesis
does not hold well at all with public universities. Public
universities obviously have constraints or caps on their
tuition through the State often times, but separate from that,
all the evidence that finds the limited effectiveness of this
actually holding, again is constrained within the private for-
profit sector
Mr. Takano. That's very interesting Mr. Ortagus because the
Chairman and this Committee have really done some
groundbreaking work to reign in for-profit universities. And as
you said the studies that do exist to validate the Bennett
hypothesis, so mainly have only shown that it's for-profit
institutions that seem to fall in line with that hypothesis.
So the research does show that for-profit institutions base
tuition on the amount of financial aid available. A rigorous
study found that for-profit institutions eligible for Federal
student aid charged 78 percent more than comparable programs at
ineligible for-profit institutions.
I think that's what you're getting at. I understand that
you yourself were a Pell recipient, and based on your
experience and your research, what improvements can be made to
the Pell Grant program to help more low-income students go to
college and complete a degree?
Mr. Ortagus. Sure. A couple things I reference in my
testimony are the informational and financial barriers. So
obviously, for informational barriers if we could reduce the
uncertainty, reduce the complexity for getting the Pell Grants
in the hands of lower income students, that's kind of a no
brainer and straightforward with some legislation and
administrative action we've seen.
The most obvious and pressing component is increasing the
Pell Grant, providing additional financial aid. You're exactly
right. I was a Pell recipient, and this really provided me the
option and the privilege to stop being a cashier at the local
Wynn-Dixie grocery store and focus more on my studies and my
pursuit of higher education. I think all students should be
afforded that opportunity and leverage to be able to focus on
their academic work in that same way.
But there's an overwhelming amount of literature speaking
to the positive impact of need-based aid which really ties to
the need to increase the Pell Grant in a meaningful manner.
Mr. Takano. Well thank you for that. How has the pandemic
worsened barriers for Pell Grant recipients, and what can be
done at the institutional State and Federal levels to alleviate
these barriers?
Mr. Ortagus. Sure. Some things I've talked about in my full
written testimony, but not as much in my oral testimony is what
actually happens to low-income students during a pandemic, so
they're more likely to drop a course. They're more likely to
have financial issues with employment, the obvious financial
issues, but they are also really clear issues with
accessibility to a reliable internet, and potentially having
the issues with employment and some of the service work
industries, really has direct kind of implications for students
who are dealing with financial distress in higher education.
So COVID-19 has really exacerbated some of these issues.
There's also really compelling literature showing that the
FAFSA declines are concentrated in the neighborhoods of low-
income and high share of black and Hispanic individuals as
well. So it's really bringing to bear and it's exacerbating
many of the inequities that already exist prior to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Mr. Takano. Thank you for that Dr. Ortagus. I just want to
close with my observation that the study that we mentioned
earlier that found that for-profit institutions eligible for
Federal aid charged 78 percent more than comparable programs at
ineligible for-profit institutions.
The study also showed that the price differential between
the for-profit institution receiving Federal aid, and the
ineligible institution is approximately the same amount of the
Federal subsidy, meaning that students paid the same in the net
price at either type of for-profit institution, but the
ineligible for-profit school pockets the Federal aid.
This strongly suggests that we need better oversight of the
for-profit sector, not that we should stop providing students
with Federal aid to enroll in college. I yield back Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. We'll now turn to does Ms. Miller-
Meeks seek recognition for questions?
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Yes sir, thank you so much.
Mr. Scott. OK thank you. You have five minutes.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I appreciate the opportunity to address
our witnesses, so thank you very much. As many of you know I
left home at 16 to become a doctor, and the route for me was
through community college, then to a four-year degree, and then
on to medical school.
In the intervening time being active duty in the military.
I also got a master's in education. And so what I found through
the educational system is that as we increased third party
payment and removed the student receiving the education from
the payment, be that loans, scholarships, or other avenues
we've seen the cost of higher education continually to
skyrocket out of sync with inflation.
We also see this in healthcare which is the same kind of
system. So the other thing that I've seen is the continued push
for four-year Baccalaureate degree which for some people is
certainly the route to go after high school, but for others is
not.
So Dr. Poliakoff, could you answer, do you think that a
Baccalaureate degree is the only avenue for a meaningful
career, or are there other avenues, and how would you recommend
addressing this disparity that we've seen?
Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you, Representative Miller-Meeks, for
that question. My answer is emphatically no for the pressure to
have a four-year degree. I'd like to recommend a book, it's now
in its third edition called Other Ways to Win by Gray and Herr.
The fact is that for many students a four-year degree is
absolutely correct. We've got a lot of problems to address
within that degree, but for others it really is like an
attractive nuisance.
In other words, pulling students into a degree program for
which they are not ready, while on the other hand community
colleges and career education--and let me say we need to level
the playing field when we talk about these issues. For-profits
are not, should be viewed the same way that we view non-profit
institutions, the same accountability measures.
You know let me get back to the point about community
colleges. There was a time when we had a great number of
reverse transfers. Students who got four-year degrees, and then
went back to community colleges because they needed to get the
kind of training that would allow them to have family
sustaining income. That tells us a lot.
There are entirely too many four-year degree programs that
are really nugatory, that do not prepare people either for
career or for citizenship. So forgive me for going on at some
length Representative, but I think you're entirely right. We
are off track if we think that the four-year degree is the only
way to win.
One thing that I would stress is that community colleges
and four-year institutions must have good articulation
agreements so that the pathway is clear. States that have
strong two plus two programs have generally seen some very,
very good results.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you for that. And I'd also like to
say some of the things that I, having gone to medical school,
some of the things I currently see in our higher education
system, and in medical school focusing on things other than the
science that we'll need to address issues, similar to lack of
accountability.
So I'm wondering if you consider accountability measures
and metrics and is there anything to control for grade
inflation and low standards, in other words, for schools to
game the system and their graduation rates, but without the
quality that makes for a meaningful degree, and a meaningful
career path.
Mr. Poliakoff. That is an extremely important question that
any degree should not be a ticket to nowhere, an expensive
ticket to nowhere. And there are certainly ways to make sure
that graduation rates aren't gamed. There are some excellent
academic value-added assessments that need to be used more, the
ETS proficiency profile, the Council on Aid to Education,
Collegiate Learning Assessment.
These are rigorous tests. I actually had the temerity to
try one, and I'm glad nobody ever recorded my score. There are
ways of seeing how well students have taken in the core
collegiate skills that they need for success in any career. We
need to use these better.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much and thank you Mr.
Chair. I yield back my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And I see you're competing with some
of your colleagues from behind you. Thank you for
participating.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I do apologize.
Mr. Scott. On their behalf, thank you. Ms. Leger-Fernandez
is next up. You're recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much Chair and Ranking
Member. You know I do consistently hear from constituents and
the schools in my district that the Pell Grant is so essential,
and one of the best ways we can improve our higher education
system I will admit like many of us here I received the Pell
Grant, and for a time my kids actually received the Pell Grant.
It tells you the kind of work I was doing.
But I wanted to ask Chancellor Jones a question. Earlier we
heard Mr. Poliakoff's testimony criticize the increase in
student services, non-academic services that schools were
engaging in as part of profligate spending. Can you describe
how services like wraparound services for disadvantaged
students, are they beneficial, and whether you believe that
these non-academic services are necessary to ensure success?
Mr. Jones. Yes. Let me just say thank you for the question.
I have--fundamentally believe that an important part of the
educational experience occurs outside of the formal classroom.
I think sometimes we get too focused on the formal classrooms,
and we don't really fully appreciate that those services that
occur outside of the classroom further supports the ability of
our students to be academically successful.
And so it's one thing to recruit a student into your
university to provide the bridge for financial support, but you
have to bring them into a place that has a culture of providing
those wraparound services that are critically important to
their mental health, their sense of well-being, that provides
the academic support that they need to be successful.
And a lot of that academic support actually begins before
you admit them into your university, in terms of summer bridge
programs. How do you reach out to Pell eligible students and
make sure they understand, and that they are well prepared to
be successful in your university.
And I can tell you, you must invest in those services if
you are going to have students that not only are admitted, but
graduate in a timely fashion. I can tell you that is part of
the secret sauce. Pell is the absolute foundation for our
Illinois Promise and our Illinois Commitment.
But those wraparound services we provide for students once
they get here is the reason that our graduation rate for Pell
students is between 80 to 82 percent, one of the highest 39-40
percent higher than the national average. And only about 6
percent lower than what the majority population, and we're
working hard to close that gap by investing in those wraparound
services that really does make a difference.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I wanted to one
congratulate Darleny Suriel for her commitment and her
perseverance, and just ask you whether you believe that the
doubling of Pell, you said it was really necessary, but you
also pointed out how the student debt that you had to take out
was impacting you, and your ability, and your family.
Do you think that the doubling of Pell is enough so you
don't have to undertake significant student debt in the future,
or will you also still need to if we actually doubled Pell,
take out loans to make it through?
Ms. Suriel. Yes, thank you for that question, Congresswoman
Fernandez. I think that it's a start. It's a big step. It
definitely would have made a difference for me because I
wouldn't have had to take out that loan, and I wouldn't have
had to worry about that debt.
Is it enough? I don't think so. I attend a public
institution because it's a lot cheaper, but for students that
are attending private institutions, even doubling the Pell
Grant would still force them to take out loans in order to be
able to afford their education.
But I definitely think that doubling the Pell Grant for
students in public institutions, it would allow them to afford
other resources that they need, such as like I said
transportation costs, food, and even other digital devices such
as a laptop, mobile hotspot.
We saw how big the digital gap was, especially throughout
the pandemic, but it would allow them to afford these resources
so that they can excel academically, and they can attain a
degree.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. Chancellor Jones, I also
wanted to have a conversation with you about the benefit of
attracting and hiring minority professors because for example
in New Mexico, 23 of the 29 universities and colleges we have
here are minority serving. I ran out of time to do that, so
I'll submit that in writing because I do think that that's an
important topic for us to explore. Thank you very much Mr.
Chairman I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. The Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, and I got a message that he had wanted me to
defer to Ms. Miller-Meeks as the first questioner, but so thank
you for that. And for questions, Dr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
witnesses that are here today. I truly understand the
difficulties of the burdens that we're now placing upon
students in overwhelming debt. I mean I was on a full
scholarship, but I still had to take a job to help afford other
costs, and you know that's what's part of having skin in the
game.
We can't have everything always given to us, and I knew I
just had to work extra hours despite being in a pre-medical
program. So I'm very attuned to the debt and the hardship that
we face, but that's also life, and that's how we work through
things. I have a question with Dr. Poliakoff, and by the way
thank you. You and I have had many discussions about some of
the insanities that are going on regarding some of the things
that happen on campus with administrative bloat et cetera.
I'll ask two questions. I was on the Board of Trustees of a
liberal arts college, and I appreciate your help with that. Can
you discuss the role that you believe Board of Trustees have
about that are occurring on college campuses these days?
I was on one that at times was just a rubber stamp, and I
don't think that's what boards should be, but I would
appreciate your evaluation of what's going on in college
campuses these days.
Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you, Congressman Murphy, Dr. Murphy.
We need to be very clear about what should be the role of the
trustee. The trustee is not primarily a checkbook, or a
cheerleader, although it's great for them to support their
institutions. They're fiduciaries. They're the people who have
to make the hard calls.
They should not seek an adversarial relationship with
administration, but they are their supervisors. Ultimately,
everything that happens on campus is something that they are
accountable for. They tend to understand usually a little bit
more about the budget as one of their key roles, but they also
need to take a look at issues of the core function of the
institution which is academic success.
What's the curriculum like? What's the general education
program like? They should take a look at student life. The
level of the free exchange of ideas, these are all part of
their solemn responsibility.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I agree with you completely. We talk
about free speech on campuses, that's a whole other different
discussion. I've been very vocal about administrative bloat.
You know we look at the money that just flows into colleges.
There's been very, very, very, little activity in regard to
actually reigning in college costs.
We say, you know, we hear so many times we need more money,
we need more money, we need more money, well in medicine about
15 years ago there was a great transition because Medicare
wasn't paying us anymore. We weren't getting more and more from
Medicare, we actually had to cut costs. So tell me what you
believe. Is there any hope for universities, colleges, to
actually take that seriously to cut costs, to actually help our
students in the long-term, rather than bloating budgets from
administrators and all these extra programs.
Mr. Poliakoff. Yes indeed. They need to look to the
positive outliers, and they are there. Perdue, President Mitch
Daniels former Governor has an administrative cost that's
$1,100.00 less than the peers. They have had a tuition freeze
for 7 years. It went down, the tuition went down from the time
he started as President, and their academic measures have
simply been going up all the time.
This can be done. Arizona State University is another
example where administrative costs have actually dropped per
student. I recommend, I don't mean to be touting our own
products, but we have a free website called
howcollegesspendmoney.com where with a few keystrokes people
can see what is the ratio between spending on administration
versus instruction.
In some cases I hope Boards of Trustees will look at it and
say we need to investigate. Maybe there's a good reason for it,
but this is not acceptable.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, I agree completely. We want to support our
students. We want to give them every single one, regardless of
socioeconomic status, a chance for opportunity for growth, but
you know part of that rather than just throwing money at a
system that's actually bloated, we actually have some personal
responsibility in regarding to cutting costs for non-necessary
items, non-academic items on campus.
You go to college to learn. You don't go for all this other
stuff, and that's what in my opinion has blown the cost of
tuition and thrown such a burden on our students now. So my
time is up. Thank you, guys, for coming and I yield back Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you. The next person in
seniority is the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Manning.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this very important hearing on an issue that is so
important to my district. I represent a district that has 13
colleges and community colleges, including three HBCU's, so
Pell Grants are extremely important to us.
Chancellor Jones, we know that a critical piece to ensuring
that students are successful when they transfer from a
community college to a four-year institution is providing them
with additional wraparound supports, such as counseling and
tutoring at their new institution.
And I had the privilege of sitting on the Board of UNC
Greensboro, for several years where I observed the kinds of
supports that they use to help their students succeed. So I
wonder if you can tell me do you work directly with community
colleges in your State to recruit transfer students? What
supports are available to ease the transfer process for Pell
Grant students, moving from community colleges to your
institution because I know we can all learn from your
experience.
Mr. Jones. Well thank you so much for the question. Yes, we
have a very active engagement with more than five community
colleges across the State. We have worked very hard to kind of
strengthen our articulation agreement, and to transfer pathways
with those community colleges, so that students when they start
community college will have a very clear understanding of
what's required at the end of that 2-year period that basically
guarantees their admission to the University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign.
And it is something that we are constantly coming back and
reviewing and tweaking, because you know there are issues
sometime where a certain student might not quite meet the
criteria and we're constantly rethinking that.
But one of the ways that we've strengthened the community
college pipeline is as you said making sure that pathways are
clear, and that they have the wraparound services once they get
it here just like any student that started out here first year.
I mentioned the Illinois Commitment. One of the beautiful
things about that Illinois Commitment it's also applicable to
transfer students from families that make $67,100.00 or less.
So they are able to come in as second, third-, and fourth-year
students through the transfer portal to get access to that free
tuition and fee commitment. We don't just give them 2-years we
actually give them an additional year.
So you can transfer in, get free tuition and fees for 3
years to allow you enough time to complete. That's the critical
part of what we do. We have on average 1,000 to 1,500 transfer
students each and every year. A great percentage of those
students are Pell eligible or Pell students, and so it's a
critical part of our overarching success in making sure that
Pell students not only get access, but they get access to a
degree.
They graduate at very high rates, and they have very high
participation rate in what we call first year experiences, or
first year destination where 93 percent of our students have
that first destination within 6 months of graduating. So it is
a very much a part of our overarching commitment providing
affordable, accessible education to all.
Mrs. Manning. Wonderful. Thank you, and if you haven't met
our great Chancellor Frank Gilliam, I hope you have the
opportunity to do so.
Mr. Jones. Look forward to it.
Ms. Manning. Dr. Ortagus, Members of this Committee are
keenly aware of the importance of increasing degree attainment
for individual students who will increasingly need post-
secondary education for access to good jobs. Can you tell us
about trends in college access at public four-year
institutions, have we made progress as a nation in expanding
access to our flagship institutions? And if not, why not?
Mr. Ortagus. Thank you for the question. There has been
some progress in the long-run over time, but we aren't
enrolling enough low-income students. So roughly a third, a
little over a third of students at public four-years are Pell
recipients.
But if you look at the public flagships, it's roughly a
quarter, so that's clearly not enough students who are Pell
recipients who are engaging with these institutions that were
founded to you know serve the communities in which they reside.
So obviously, we want to do a better job of enrolling and
educating these low-income students.
Also importantly because they have extremely high
graduation rates, and they're incredibly effective at improving
the quality of students' lives and the labor market outcomes.
So haven't quite made the progress we want to make for sure.
There's been a little bit of a decline in recent years, but
hopefully that will change moving forward for sure.
Ms. Manning. Thanks so much. My time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin Mr.
Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. General question first of all for Dr.
Poliakoff, I hope I got that right, Poliakoff. I think one of
the concerns that everybody in this room should have is the
increasing cost of tuition. And I know because of Pell Grants
and other needs-based grants, some of the lower income people
are taken care of, but I just ran into the other day into a guy
who was maybe a family who had more money. I don't know how
much his parents were willing to help him.
He was sitting there in his 30's with over 30 grand in
debt. And obviously, the cost, the little they prepared us for
here, in the last three decades, if car prices went up as quick
as tuition the average new car would cost $80,000.00. OK, so
clearly, they're not running a tight ship at these
universities.
But do you believe part of the problem is because some
people get government grants of some nature it allows the
universities not to tighten ships, and as a result the middle
class that has to take out the loans, the amount they have to
take out keeps going up. Is that a valid concern?
Mr. Poliakoff. Absolutely Congressman. If one looks at the
cost calculators online a family of four in the middle class it
is not going to be the recipient of a whole lot of
institutional aid, or Federal aid, and that's going to put
pressure on loans. And I do want to go back to this question,
the Bennett hypothesis.
Our research--let's say our literature research shows some
studies by very, very reliable people in the field, Michael
McPherson, Martin Shapiro, Ronald Erinburg that suggests that
it could be up to a $50.00 increase in tuition for every
hundred dollar increase in aid.
I would counsel the Committee to look very carefully at the
study from the New York Fed, and some of these other studies
before concluding that this is a disease of for-profit
institutions. It seems to be a disease across all sectors, and
it's not appropriate to go beating up on for-profits when this
seems to be something that needs to be addressed holistically.
Mr. Grothman. Does it bother you ethically that Pell Grants
are available to people who are low income, but if you're a
little above low income you're expected to drive yourself 40 or
50 grand in debt? In other words penalizing you because you, or
your parents are married, or penalizing you because your
parents have a job making $45,000.00 or $50,000.00 a year.
Mr. Poliakoff. I'm more concerned Congressman about the
effect that these programs seem to have in ratcheting up the
costs for everybody. I'm deeply committed to the idea of access
and helping those students in greatest need, but when those
programs are simply being used as part of a vicious cycle
whereby, they institute more tuition increases which will be
particularly problematic for middle class students, something
is very wrong with the picture. I would also suggest----
Mr. Grothman. And you said particularly, I want to
understand. It's particularly troublesome for middle class
students because they don't get Pell Grants, right? Isn't that
why this is particularly a bad system for them?
Mr. Poliakoff. Well that Congressman, and the fact that
they get so little institutional aid in the calculations--
[recording breaks off]--so it's really a double effect on them.
And one thing I wanted to mention to the Committee if I may, it
is a good idea to go look back at Bowen's Revenue Theory of
Costs. I keep this pinned to my desk. At any given time the
unit cost of education is determined by the amount of revenues
currently available for education relative to enrollment.
It expresses the fundamental fact that unit cost is
determined by hard dollars of revenue, and only indirectly and
distantly by considerations of need, technology, efficiency and
market wages and prices. So somebody has got to break this
vicious cycle.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Here's one more thing I want you to tell
me what I should say. There's a gal back home. Her kids both
are 30 grand in debt, and they're working to pay off the debt.
Her sister did not have a job lived more of the welfare
lifestyle. Her kids went to college and got no debt.
What should I tell my constituent who you would argue did
things right because the current system penalizes her kids?
Mr. Poliakoff. We've got very fine institutions that have
operated at pretty modest costs, even lowering tuition, and
keeping it frozen. It is--I vehemently disagree with the idea
that college debt is good debt. This is an obstacle to
marriage, to raising children, to buying a home, and we've got
to go back to the issue of higher ed being in a spending
crisis, not a funding crisis.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you.
Gentleman from New York Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair for convening this
hearing. Congress signed the Higher Education Act of 1965 into
law to ensure that any individual, regardless of their
background or ability to pay could access a college education.
For over 55 years the Pell Grant program has been a key tool in
ensuring millions of students from low-income families can
afford to go to college.
Nearly 7 million students rely on the Pell Grant program to
cover the costs of tuition, room and board, school supplies,
and other fees. Yet despite their proven success, Pell Grants
now cover a small and shrinking share of college costs for
students who receive them.
In 1975 Pell used to cover almost 80 percent of a college
education, but since then it's purchasing power has eroded
significantly, and today Pell only covers 29 percent of a
college education. As we've already discussed Federal financial
aid has not kept pace with the rising cost of tuition, making
it increasingly difficult for low-income students to access a
post-secondary degree.
It's also the case that when students go to college they
don't just have to pay for tuition and fees, they also need to
cover the cost of things like transportation, housing and food
which have increased at a pace that Pell Grants have not kept
up with. A study conducted by the National College Attainment
Network found that only 25 percent of public----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones could you suspend for just
a minute. I understand from the technician that the livestream
has incurred some difficulty, so we have to suspend for just a
moment.
Mr. Jones. Sure.
[Pause]
Mr. Scott.--[recording comes back in] I understand from our
technicians that we're back livestreaming, and so we'll
recognize the gentleman from New York Mr. Jones, thank you.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to quickly re-
summarize. Congress passed the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
ensure that any individual regardless of their background or
ability to pay can access a college education. But a study
conducted by the National College Attainment Network found that
only 25 percent of public four-year institutions were
affordable to Pell Grant recipients.
This is among the many reasons why I, along with my
colleagues have called for the maximum Pell Grant to be doubled
and tied to inflation. Chancellor Jones, how would the
proposals in the American Families Plan, and the Pell Grant
Preservation and Expansion Act that Congress is considering,
help restore the promise of the Higher Education Act?
Mr. Jones. Thank you very much Representative for the
opportunity to respond to that question. I think the commitment
to really increase Pell is essentially getting the money back
in the hands of the students that need it to the most to ensure
accessibility to an affordable education. And as I said in my
oral and my written testimony the Pell Grant is absolutely the
foundation on which universities, like the University of
Illinois have been able to increase the investment of its own
resources.
And here in Illinois we are very proud of the fact that
we've increased institutional commitment for financial aid by
more than almost 50 million dollars in the 5-years that I've
been here. And during the period where we received significant
budget cuts, and we were able to hold tuition flat for six out
of those 7 years. So I think it speaks against some of the
narratives about a direct link between Pell and the driving
cost of tuition.
And so I guess my main point to answer your question is
that with a doubling of the Pell, or even tripling it if that
were possible, we're certainly leveraging the institutional
commitment that we are putting on the table to keep education
accessible and affordable.
It really means that we already have a very good rate
relative to our peers, but it would provide the opportunity for
us to do even more for students from middle to low-income
backgrounds to get a world class education at an affordable
price. Because we're doing our part, and I know many of my
fellow institutions are doing their part, and so doubling Pell
would really allow us to leverage institutional resources,
which State resources to provide a world class education, and
minimize the number of students that graduate with substantial
debt.
We're very proud that here in Illinois most of our
students, the majority graduate with little or no debt. Those
that have debt, which is about 4--something percent of our
students, the debt that they graduate with is significantly
below the national average. On average our students only
graduate with about $24,000.00 in debt.
And why are we able to do this? How are we able to do this?
It is because the basic foundation that Pell provides for us to
leverage our own institutional resources to keep higher
education accessible and affordable, and the main thing I can't
emphasize enough are the outcomes.
We are very committed to narrowing the gap, and we already
have one of the best rates in the country. There should be no
gap between the graduation rates of Pell students as it relates
to the majority of students, and we are absolutely committed on
destroying that gap, but we need Pell, we need our own
institutional resources to get us there.
Mr. Jones. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Tennessee Ms.
Harshbarger.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Chairman, Scott, and thank you
to all the witnesses today. I'm like Dr. Miller-Meeks. You
know, I went to school, and I had to get any grant that I could
get, and anything I could possibly find that would help me pay
for tuition. You know Dr. Poliakoff across the country, and
I've talked to people here recently. We've seen these
universities go crazy with initiatives to draw students in,
like lazy rivers, they put extravagant restaurants in, they
change the dorm structures, just to attract these elusive
seniors to come in and do their four-year university bid at
their school.
And you know as well as well I do, that raises tuition. And
I guess my question is this. What do you say to these college
Presidents about tuition going up because of that? And should
the U.S. Government do anything, or change the way they
federally fund these universities when the tuition keeps going
up?
And if you would, what kind of metric would you put in
place to help these guys and guide them to change that tuition
structure sir?
Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you Representative Harshbarger. One of
the things that can grow out of the study that we did,
howcollegesspendmoney.com which is online is getting the sense
for what's customary. I'm not saying it's reasonable, but
what's customary for the ratio of administration to
instructional expenditure.
And that could well be an accountability metric used. And
many states track classroom utilization, which is actually a
very good thing before the State makes a commitment at public
universities to build new buildings. It is a disgrace that on
so many campuses Friday is a dead zone, as Wells Hall a trustee
from the Board of Regents at Texas said, ``You could fire a
cannon through any of our classroom buildings on Friday and not
hit anybody.'' That's a waste of taxpayer money and it corrupts
students to think that the real world is 4 days a week and
starts at 10 o'clock in the morning.
And when the building boom continues that way, it wastes
money, and it corrupts. So there are places where the Federal
Government and State government can be far more discerning in
how money is being used, and you know if I may say about lazy
rivers, I don't mean to be belligerent about Louisiana State
University, but their tuition and fees went up 95 percent
between 2010 and 2019, and they spent 85 million dollars on a
new recreation center.
Now some part of that might be private money, but anytime
you build a new building it's the gift that keeps on taking
because of maintenance, which might actually be the same amount
of money as the cost of construction. This is not good
leadership, and ACTA certainly calls Boards of Trustees to
account, and urges State legislatures to be vigilant about
that.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well I absolutely agree. You know if I
was a business owner and I had some type of funding from the
Federal Government, and I knew it was coming and they were
going to give me more, of course. Do you think I'm going to
lower the price? More than likely not.
So you know I'm looking at it from that perspective, for
heaven's sakes, if you learn that you're going to get more
money from them, it's generally not going to be an issue, is
it? You're going to keep those prices the same, or you're going
to go up.
Mr. Poliakoff. Exactly right. Senator Hank Brown, former
Senator from Colorado--I was just reviewing what he said before
this hearing. In most economic models if prices rise, fewer
consumers with limited resources can afford your services, and
thus market forces limit your ability to increase the cost to
consumer.
In higher ed however, government grants and loans help
cover the increasing prices for those with limited resources,
hence we've just fallen into the trap of Bowen's Law and have
supported bad habits that will, as Congressman said, fall
heavily on the backs of the middle class in particular.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well I absolutely agree, and as far as
I'm concerned there needs to be accountability. We want to help
those students who need help but boy, we don't want to continue
to give to a bloated environment because the prices just
continue to go up. And I appreciate you and I know my time's
up, and I yield back Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from New York Mr.
Bowman.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Suriel thank you
for your testimony today and speaking on behalf of so many
college going New Yorkers with a particular focus on the CUNY
system. I also want to thank you for the work you do as a youth
counselor coordinator. My district includes parts of the Bronx
and Westchester which also includes CUNY campuses. Our focus
today is on the Pell Grant, and I want to start with a question
about the FAFSA, because to get a Pell Grant you had to fill
out the FAFSA first.
Unfortunately, if a student isn't aware of the FAFSA, or
doesn't have the support they need to fill it out, they might
take out a private loan when they could qualify for a Pell
Grant. Last year Congress took significant steps to simplify
the FAFSA, make it easier for students to apply. Can you share
what your experience was like filling out the FAFSA?
Do you know of any peers who maybe didn't know about the
FAFSA, or didn't know where to go for help in filling it out?
Ms. Suriel. Thank you so much Congress Member Bowman. Thank
you for your question, and also thank you for everything you've
done for education, especially as an educator. For me I've
always had a complicated relationship with FAFSA. As a first-
generation immigrant and student, I am the first in my family
to go to college.
My mother doesn't even speak English, so for the most part
I had to figure out FAFSA by myself. Now I am a student at the
Goddard Riverside Option Center where they provide additional
support for things like FAFSA. But one of my personal
experiences, there was a semester, my fall 2017 semester, where
I was having trouble with my FAFSA, and I thought I completed
it, but I did not. I ended up not getting any aid that year,
and actually accumulating tuition debt.
I also, due to similar circumstances, that I was also
balancing my job at Best Buy and schoolwork, and trying to
navigate everything, I also ended up losing my FAFSA due to my
GPA dropping.
Those two circumstances basically forced me into having to
take a year and a half gap year, to not only pay off this
tuition debt that ended up going to collections and increasing,
but also trying to get my FAFSA back, which I was not
successful at doing. If it wasn't for the help of the Goddard
Riverside Option Center, which is a community-based
organization, and also help with my mother, and also what I say
to my job, I would not have been able to go back to school.
As I mentioned my GPA did drop to a 1.7, but because of
their help I was able to go back to school and bring it back up
to a 3.5, and that's what I'm trying to say, that students need
the support. A lot of the things that I'm hearing today is
about accountability, and I completely agree.
Students need to see this money, but most of the time we're
not a part of the decisions of where these Federal grants go.
If there was a way for this money to be distributed to
students, I don't believe there would be so much problems with
tuition debt and things of that nature.
But as for FAFSA yes, I do know a lot of peers who either
do not know how to fill out their FAFSA, struggle with it, and
actually have stopped going to school because of it, so it is
something that does deter a lot of students when it comes to
degree completion.
Mr. Bowman. It sounds like our high schools need to be
doing a lot more to support students in terms of FAFSA and
post-secondary opportunities, beginning even as early as ninth
grade, and you know, based on my experience in education, I
know, often times you may have one school counselor to hundreds
and hundreds of students. So there's not enough resources there
to provide the support that students need.
Can you speak a little bit about that? Like what more could
high schools be doing to support students in post-secondary
opportunities, whether it's college or careers? And you could
speak about it through the lens of FAFSA if you don't mind.
Ms. Suriel. Absolutely, absolutely. Yes, I totally agree. I
think high schools need to start talking about college, and
also other post-secondary options as young as possible in ninth
grade, and not wait until the end of junior year, the beginning
of senior year.
As for school counselors, personally in my high school we
had a guidance counselor, a different guidance counselor every
year, so it was hard to build a relationship, and it was one
guidance counselor for over 500 students. Therefore, if you
weren't in the top 10 percent of students performing, chances
are you weren't getting support. And like I said I got a lot
more support from CBO's than I did from my own high school.
I also believe that high schools need to support parents.
They need to like support parents in terms of helping them fill
out these FAFSA applications, especially parents who may not
have digital literacy, parents who are immigrants and may not
understand the language, and the jargon also needs to be a lot
more accessible as well to parents and students.
Mr. Bowman. Ms. Suriel, you're awesome. Thank you so much
for your testimony. Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I understand the Ranking Member of
the full Committee is seeking recognition. I understand the
Ranking Member of the full Committee is seeking recognition. If
so, Dr. Foxx you're recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
for being with us today. I appreciated Mr. Poliakoff. I
appreciate your comments about the lack of oversight around
what colleges and universities are doing with the student aid
dollars they're receiving.
Your testimony notes that there are some institutions that
are being better stewards of taxpayer funds. Can you describe
what characteristics ``good institutions'' have in terms of
providing appropriate academic support to Pell Grant students?
Are those good characteristics common to all those
institutions, or are they more about what works on that
particular campus?
Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you, Representative Foxx. One of the
really positive initiatives that I've seen is the innovation
alliance with schools like Perdue, Arizona State University,
New Mexico, and others. They have really begun to use
predictive analytics in order to spot the needs of students, so
many unfortunately do arrive with academic deficiencies.
And certainly President Michael Crow has done a great job
in working with his faculty to address the bottleneck courses
where so many students just get discouraged and leave, these
being engineering, mathematics courses, things that are just so
important for really productive careers.
This is so much better than what happens too often at
universities which is that cynically students are accepted who
are not college ready, not prepared to make it, whose
ambitions, and whose finances will be shattered by having been
used as a revenue stream for 1 year without the mechanisms for
ensuring their success.
Hence, I really do look seriously at the schools that have
used new technologies to be able to get help to students
quickly.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Another question, one of the big
issues that the committees will look at in reauthorization is
accreditation. I share some sympathy with institutions trying
to innovate in ways that allow them to deliver the content in a
more cost-effective manner.
Can you talk about what you see as the problems with the
current accreditation constraints, and how students could
benefit with some revisions to the accreditation process. And
if you could be succinct, I have one more question I would like
to ask.
Mr. Poliakoff. Yes. Transparency is crucial. Accreditation
is sometimes called a Good Housekeeping seal of approval, and
that binary distinction is applied to schools with appalling
low graduation rates who don't do a good job by their students.
That just misleads the public.
So one thing we need to do is to be able to get that
information out and maybe ultimately severing Title IV access
from the accreditation system of peer review would be an
important step forward.
Ms. Foxx. Well thank you very much. There are a number of
states that have started to demand more of institutions, or
students in return for State institutional aid or State grant
aid respectively. Have you had the opportunity to review the
effectiveness of these State policies?
Mr. Poliakoff. Well Florida is a really good example
because of the effectiveness of the Board of Governors which
actually will control performance-based funding to the campuses
based on how they meet certain metrics. And we've seen a post-
secondary education performance fund in Kentucky.
There are initiatives that really have moved this forward.
Again, I don't want to tout my own organization's work, but our
publication Bold Leadership Real Reform gives some pretty good
examples of such initiatives.
Ms. Foxx. Well thank you very much. I want to say that the
comments you made about the attitude of institutions about
we'll just use a colloquial term, ``flunking'' people out after
1 year without being concerned about their future, is something
we've seen for too long in post-secondary education.
I saw it when I was a student and I talked to recent
students who say they still see it. And we have to stop that.
If institutions admit students, they have an obligation to
admit only students who can make it, and then if they admit
students who can't make it to do better.
I worked with programs when I was at Appalachian State
University that did that, and we had very good success rate,
even with students who are marginal, who were admitted, but I
appreciate your comments very much, and again I thank all our
witnesses for being here. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin,
Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
the witnesses. As the Chairman said he and I have a bill to
double Pell Grants to increase Pell eligibility to Dreamers, to
add six semesters of help, and if I can just in the beginning
there's a few things I just want to say one.
Our Ranking Member, I do have to respectfully disagree with
your analysis that colleges are the major beneficiaries, not
students, of Pell Grants. As someone who got a Pell Grant, and
probably wouldn't have been able to go to college without a
Pell Grant, I was a beneficiary more than University of
Wisconsin Madison, because that allowed me to get that
education.
In fact, when you say that about universities, the
University of Wisconsin Madison was under a legislative freeze
on tuition, and they lifted that freeze this year and guess
what? U of W Madison still froze tuition for in-State residents
because it's not about just having more money for the
university, it's about getting money for students so that they
can go to college. I just want to mention that.
I think one of the things that was kind of inferred a few
times was that not everyone should have to go to college. And I
agree, there's apprenticeships, there's other things that
people can do. But if you want to go to college finances
shouldn't be what holds you back, and that's the problem with
that argument is you're essentially saying poor people should
be in some kind of a caste system and not be able to go to
college, and only wealthy people can.
And I have a fundamental problem with that as I'm sure does
Dr. Ortagus who mentioned he was a Pell recipient, and Ms.
Suriel, who's a Pell recipient. I mean it's what gave us the
opportunities to be able to do this. So Ms. Suriel let me start
with you, and then I'll go to Dr. Ortagus, since we're fellow
Pell Grant recipients.
Would you have been able to go to college without that
money?
Ms. Suriel. Absolutely not. I could have just dreamed about
it.
Mr. Pocan. How about you Dr. Ortagus?
Mr. Ortagus. I could have gone to college. I had a broad-
based Mayor Dade Scholarship from the State of Florida, but my
success in college was directly relevant to the increase in
need-based aid.
Mr. Pocan. Did you work while you were in college as well
Dr. Ortagus?
Mr. Ortagus. Yes. I'm embarrassed to admit that my first
year I did not have a Pell Grant. I didn't know what I was
doing, so I was working exorbitant hours, and then the second,
third and four-year I was able to kind of leverage that need-
based aid accordingly, but yes.
Mr. Pocan. And Dr.--I called you Dr. Suriel, maybe you'll
be a doctor someday, but Ms. Suriel I know you mentioned you
also work, and so did I. I bartended and worked often until 2
in the morning and then got up and started classes the next
day, and I never took a spring break when my friends did
because I was busy working so I could pay for school.
Ms. Suriel another thing that's been talked about is that
the graduation rates aren't as high for Pell recipients, as
though that somehow is a significant problem. Well I think you
know, as Chancellor Jones said, there's wraparound programs we
can do to help, but I took a semester off during school to help
my dad because I didn't get support from my parents, and that's
what happens when you come up in a working-class family, you
mentioned some challenges.
Can you just talk a little bit more about the challenges
you had because one of the things we're trying to do is add six
semesters of Pell, so that people who may switch colleges, or
have other life experiences that you know, just so you know Ms.
Suriel, half of my colleagues are millionaires.
Nothing wrong with millionaires, but they have a little
different life experience perhaps than you and I. Could you
just talk a little bit about why that's important?
Ms. Suriel. Yes absolutely. I want to refer to an earlier
comment made by Ranking Member Murphy about certain non-
academic costs. I feel like there are costs that even though
they may not be directly related to academics such as books,
per se, they do affect academics, such as, as I said
transportation.
How can you excel at school if you cannot get to school?
Such as food. If you are a student that is taking three to four
classes in a day, and you have maybe an hour of a gap hour. So
for example, me--the Borough of Manhattan Community College is
located in Tribeca, one of the most affluent neighborhoods in
New York City.
Food was not affordable, nor accessible to us, and neither
was it affordable in the cafeteria. If there was a program that
distributed transportation costs where the Pell Grant can
assess the transportation costs of a student or can give them a
certain amount of money for books or for meal swipes, just like
they do in the SUNY program.
I think these kinds of resources would actually help a lot
of students not only attain a degree but feel as though they
have been supported throughout their college journey.
Mr. Pocan. Yes. For many students the majority of your
expenses are not tuition, it's all the other expenses to go to
college, right? What's your expected major? What are you hoping
to major in?
Ms. Suriel. So I'm majoring in political science, with a
minor in Latin American studies.
Mr. Pocan. Great. And are you thinking about any additional
education after your bachelor's degree, or not sure yet?
Ms. Suriel. Yes, I hope to do my master's degree
afterwards.
Mr. Pocan. Awesome. Well you're awesome, thank you so much
for being here today and best wishes to you, I yield back.
Ms. Suriel. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Next, we have the gentlelady from
Louisiana Ms. Letlow.
Ms. Letlow. All the witnesses thank you for taking the time
to testify before the Committee today. In the Fifth District of
Louisiana many students benefit from Pell Grants. Pell Grants
help make a college degree attainable by providing key
financial aid for students. I see the value in supporting
students who demonstrate true financial need to attend college,
so they can achieve their dreams and enter the workforce
prepared to take on their careers.
However, as a former university administrator I've also
unfortunately seen abuse of the financial aid system. I've
witnessed students use government aid for use on non-school
related expenses. These scenarios concern me when these
resources are meant for a specific school cost, like tuition,
room and board and books.
There should be better oversight on how these funds are
spent. While I'm glad we're discussing how Pell Grants can
benefit our students, I have reservations about the policy
ideas of doubling the maximum Pell Grant award, and expanding
semester eligibility for another six semesters, especially when
I've seen first-hand misuse of financial aid funds.
Some students may not want to choose a four-year degree
path. They may be more inclined to attend community college or
a trade school, where they can be prepared for skilled
occupations in a specific field. These careers are often in
high demand and are good-paying jobs.
My question is for Dr. Poliakoff. What would you say about
the impression that students need a four-year degree from a
university or college so they can be successful in their
careers? How can Congress remove the stigma?
Mr. Poliakoff. Well Representative that is such a crucial
question. And perhaps part of it is informational on the number
of four-year college graduates who leave college with lots of
debt, and relatively limited career possibilities. How many of
them would have been far better off doing a 2-year degree, or
career training that can articulate ultimately into a four-year
degree if appropriate.
I remember back when I was Deputy Secretary of Education of
Pennsylvania, and I toured Harrisburg Area Community College,
and President Edna Baehre was explaining to me--this is back in
the 90's, that the graduates of their respiratory therapy
program were being hired right out of it at $28,000.00 a year
which then in Pennsylvania was quite a great wage.
And as I mentioned earlier, she was seeing a lot of reverse
transfers from four-year institutions to Harrisburg Area
Community College in order to get the kind of career skills
they needed. A four-year degree can be a wonderful, wonderful
thing, both for career and citizenship, but until four-year
institutions reinstitute a real core curriculum that's full of
the fundamental skills, and cut-out a lot of the fluff, they're
not serving students well.
This is one of the reasons my organization has really
advocated looking seriously at a 90-credit hour Baccalaureate
degree major core curriculum and get people out into workforce
for further training.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much for that answer. I yield back
my remaining time to Ranking Member Foxx. I yield back
Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you and next we have the
gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much Chairman Scott, and
Subcommittee Ranking Member Murphy for this important hearing,
and thank you to our witnesses. There's a growing college
affordability crisis in this country, and it started long
before the pandemic.
Tuition and fees continue to rise while the amount of
financial assistance available to students fails to keep pace.
I was on my own when I went to college. I was able to work my
through first at community college, then college, then law
school, all with a combination of grants, loans, and work
study. And I worked every year.
I was able to repay the manageable amount of debt I had
even while working in public space, but unfortunately this is
not the experience for far too many students across the
country. A few weeks ago it was an honor to welcome Education
Secretary Cardona to northwest Oregon.
And we spoke with community college students and
administrators, and they made clear that adequate financial aid
was a lifeline to keep them enrolled, especially during the
pandemic. We spoke with RJ, a student from Chemeketa Community
College and he told us about how federally funded direct aid
provided him with financial stability. It allowed him to pay
electricity and rent, and therefore stay in school.
We know that the Pell Grant delivers critical financial
support to make college accessible, especially for our most
historically disenfranchised students. So by increasing Pell
Grant funding we will help more students be able to reach their
higher education goals.
So my questions are for Dr. Ortagus. In your testimony you
discuss some of the institutional efforts to improve access and
student success. So based on your research, what institutional
efforts have been most helpful in supporting, retaining, and
graduating Pell Grant recipients, and what can the Federal
Government do to support or expand these efforts--these
successful efforts.
Mr. Ortagus. Sure. So what I did reference in my own
research I talked about folks who had left college without
getting a degree. We were able to induce them to return to
college by offering financial support as well as trying to
simplify the re-enrollment process.
Beyond that when thinking about retention or degree
completion components, I reference the CUNY ASAP model and that
had really nice mechanisms associated with like high touch
advising and wraparound services that were referenced earlier
today. Not only the financial side for textbook assistance,
they call it tuition and fee gap funds that were outlined as
well, but they would really have a nice total support for the
student and that was found to nearly double graduation rates
for a really empirically rigorous study where they were
randomly assigning folks to the CUNY ASAP relative to the
control group.
So really compelling evidence of the benefit of
informational and financial barriers being addressed through
those wraparound services.
Ms. Bonamici. But it really does make a difference if I
support Trio and Gear Up and programs that help with retention,
particularly for first generation students. We have a great
program in Oregon called Future Connect, and it's a mentoring
program and the students who actively go through the program
they act as mentors. It really makes a difference.
And Dr. Ortagus I was encouraged to see that President
Biden's American Families Plan incorporates many aspects of the
America's College Promise Act, including a Federal/State
partnership to provide tuition free community college, and a
dedicated stream of funding for increasing student success, and
tuition subsidies for students at Historically Black colleges
and universities, tribal colleges and universities, and
minority serving institutions.
So based on you research, what benefits should we expect
for students and communities if Congress were to provide the
funds necessary to make the tuition free community college a
reality nationwide?
Mr. Ortagus. Sure. So I'll talk about like the broader
academic literature and what we've seen in a relatively new
area of scholarship. One is that we look at the Tennessee
Program. It's been found to reduce student loan debt. There
have also been rigorous studies looking at increases in
students of color as far as enrolling at those community
colleges, and increases, specifically with Hispanic and Native
American students, and their likelihood to go earn a bachelor's
degree.
So there are some significant academic outcomes, enrollment
outcomes, and financial outcomes that are a benefit when trying
to provide that affordability or tuition free guarantee for a
sector that is serving overwhelmingly a large share of low-
income students.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And in the brief time we have
remaining, how can we make sure that tuition free community
college works in conjunction with four-year institutions to
strengthen opportunities for all students?
Mrs. Ortagus. Yes. The biggest thing is we referenced
earlier articulation agreements. I want to briefly say that I
have read arguments about concerns about it cutting into the
market share of public four-years, and that's just kind of a
red herring, and not based in empirical fact.
I've conducted studies, well with my colleagues looking
that whenever resources are given to community colleges, or if
they even offered targeted bachelor's programs, there's
decreases in for-profit enrollment, but not actually for public
four-year enrollment.
Ms. Bonamici. And what about private colleges?
Mr. Ortagus. Excuse me?
Ms. Bonamici. What about the private, for example liberal
arts colleges, does it affect them? Same as public----
Mr. Ortagus. Yes, basically the general relationship is
when resources are given to community colleges. The research
that I'm indicating is not affecting public four-year, and was
affecting private for-profit, I did not see a statistically
significant relationship in our own work with the private non-
profits such as liberal arts colleges.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I'd be interested in getting that
new material submitted for the record. Thank you Mr. Chairman I
yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I understand there's some other
republican Members expected, but they're not on the platform
yet. If not, I recognize myself for questions. Mr. Ortagus you
mentioned a study that showed that if you spend more money, the
graduation rate went up. Can you say a little bit about this
study, how much money and what it was spent on?
Mr. Ortagus. Yes. So the general in reference to what you
were talking about, I don't remember the exact like amount or
allocation, but I can just say there's an overwhelming amount
of evidence related to of course as you provide aid to
students, they're more likely to graduate.
There are also studies on the cost side for institutions
showing that if institutions spend money specifically on
instructional spending, or student services, there are positive
implications for graduation rates. So those are kind of the two
overarching points I was trying to make in the point you're
referencing.
Mr. Scott. We've referenced the initiative to double the
Pell Grant. If we double the Pell Grant, how close will we come
to the good old days when we covered about 79 percent of the
costs of going to a State college.
Mr. Ortagus. It wouldn't quite be that close. It would be
moving in the right direction. It wouldn't quite be, you know,
nearly 80 percent coverage, but it would be moving for sure in
the right direction given that currently it's roughly 29
percent for all the public four-year costs.
And I just think when you look at the empirical literature
I referenced about the benefits of increasing need-based aid in
conjunction with the Pell Grant, which was a study in Texas,
really convincing and compelling outcomes in relation to not
only the academic outcomes, but also the estimation and the
analysis that it can pay for itself within 10 years.
These are really important points when talking about the
merits of this type of policy.
Mr. Scott. And how does it pay for itself?
Mr. Ortagus. Through tax expenditures, so obviously if we
give folks higher wages or earnings through the labor market,
it can be beneficial to the government providing that
opportunity to engage higher education in that way. And I'll be
happy to share that study on the record.
Mr. Scott. Yes, please do because when you say pay for
itself, you mean the Federal budget gets the money back to pay
for it, not that in society people get better wages and all
kinds of esoteric stuff, but the Federal Government actually
gets the money to pay the money back, is that what you're
saying?
Mr. Ortagus. Yes, to be clear, this was a study in Texas,
it was talking about State government, but the implication is
could it make sense financially for a government body to
provide this type of increase in need-based aid. That's
separate from the substantial labor market improvements as far
as earnings separate from all of the positive outcomes of a
college education.
I'm merely referencing the potential to go recoup that
investment through increased expenditures as far as taxes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Jones, you mentioned several
times wraparound services, what does wraparound mean?
Mr. Jones. Like wraparound in the context of the kind of
experiences we provide students once we get them admitted to
the university, once we provide the financial packages that
allows them to enroll. The work can certainly not stop there.
You've got to have a kind of tutoring advising services.
A lot of the things that tutored you know kind of behind
the screen if you will that makes sure that these students are
academically successful, and that if they find themselves
having challenges, whether it's academically or financially,
those challenges can be addressed.
And it can't just be a one-shot deal. The way it works here
at the university is that we provide these services for four
years to assure that the Pell eligible low-income students have
not only get access to the university, but they graduate. And
it's been shown to be very critically important.
Our first year to second year retention rates are about 92
percent for unrepresented students, and even the third and
fourth year they remain very, very high, and that's why we have
one of the highest graduation rates among first generation and
under-represented students in the country.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Jones, we talked about free community
college. If your goal is a four-year degree, is it helpful to
start with a two-year community college, or much more
advantageous to start with the four-year college itself?
Mr. Jones. Well Representative let me say after having
spent 4 years as the President of SUNY Albany and valued the
proposition when I was President of SUNY Albany, I was very
pleased to learn that 48 percent of the students that walked
across the stage at SUNY Albany started out at a community
college, and that's one of the value propositions about the
relationship between community colleges and four-year
institutions in the State of New York.
We have the same kind of aspirational goals as I've said
here where we have pathways and articulation agreements that
ensure that students ? that if that is the best choice for you
as a student, is that the most practical and economic choice
for you to make to ultimately receive a four-year degree, we
fully support that, and that's why we work so hard to have
seamless up-front very transparent articulation agreement with
community colleges across the State of Illinois.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. My time is expired, but I ask
unanimous consent to put in two reports, one report, one
article. A report from Education Reform Now, which highlighted
the low Pell enrollment at several Virginia public institutions
of higher education, and an article from The Hill that
illustrates that the problem is not specific to Virginia, but a
nationwide problem. Without objection those two--the article
and the report will be entered into the record.
Mr. Scott. Next, we have my colleague from Virginia, Mr.
Good.
Mr. Good. I thought I was your esteemed colleague from
Virginia sir.
Mr. Scott. Distinguished colleague, OK, my distinguished
colleague.
Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
recognition and the opportunity to address the group and thank
you to our witnesses. As someone who came from a lower income
family, who had to work all of my life, my parents were not
able to help me at all with college, and so I had to work my
way through.
I was the beneficiary of a Pell Grant, and without a Pell
Grant college would have been out of reach for me, so I'm
thankful for that opportunity that was provided to me to work
my way through school. Dr. Poliakoff, I want to thank you for
being here and testifying to this Subcommittee, and I
appreciate your testimony, your honest approach to this issue.
But I have concerns about that the approach from the other
side that they're taking on the Pell Grant issue, and we
continue to see the same democrat playbook--to throw more money
at a problem and hope that will fix it, hope that will make it
work finally.
And that's just what H.R. 3946 would do by doubling the
Pell Grant by Fiscal Year 2027. Not to mention the equally
concerning provision making illegal aliens eligible for Pell
Grant funding. Talk about further incentivizing these illegal
border crossings, when we continue to provide benefits to
illegal aliens, including a desire to make these--doubling the
Pell Grants available to illegal aliens.
Dr. Poliakoff, should every prospective college student
receive doubled Pell Grant funding in your opinion?
Mr. Poliakoff. I do not believe that it would be prudent or
appropriate to discuss that before digging into the
accountability measures. Resources are finite, and they are
particularly finite for education. And it is necessary to dig
into indeed the work of Third Way, a center left organization,
why are there over 200 schools with a 25 percent graduation
rate for Pell students?
What are best practices? What are worst practices? That
work hasn't been done. I'd also like to see if I may be so
bold, I'd like to see this Committee look into the idea of how
we reinvent higher education.
The costs will continue to grow, and once again I think we
need to take that report from the New York Fed very seriously,
that with increased loans and increased Pell Grants tuition
just goes up as Bowen predicted years ago.
This is a vicious cycle, and as important as it is that we
provide funding for the students who need it to get to college,
we've got to be very careful of where those dollars are going.
Mr. Good. Thank you, sir. I'm very concerned, as I think
many, at least on our side are, on the runaway costs of college
education and the explosion of spending and costs related to
non-academic purposes, or in my view, non-appropriate purposes.
And a one size fits all approach of this puts the students
last, American students last in our education system--a system
that has bloated salaries for tenured teachers, administrative
staff.
In fact a 2020 report stated that in 2019, 19 public
university Presidents or Chancellors made over a million
dollars, while the average salary for public university
Presidents was over $500,000.00, $544,136.00 to be exact. Dr.
Poliakoff are you concerned by these bloated administrative
salaries in public ed, and how it corresponds to the rising
tuition costs I would submit?
And can you recommend to us on the Committee on some ways
that we might want to attack the runaway costs of college and
help students be able to afford it?
Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you for that crucial question. It is
destructive of the budget, and destructive of morale for
leadership to be so far out of the range of even a full
professor's salary. It is unseemly. And good leadership will
back away from such practices.
Moreover, if we use--fully utilize the data that's
available from National Center for Education Statistics that we
have analyzed in our howcollegesspendmoney.com website, it
becomes possible to see what is customary, and as I said
before, not necessarily reasonable, but what is customary for
the ratio of admin to instructional spending?
And it would be very appropriate to begin to make that an
accountability metric.
Mr. Good. Thank you, you're right on time. I appreciate
your response and thanks for being with us today. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. The next person to be recognized is
the last Member on the Committee that hasn't been recognized
and that's Mrs. McClain. Mr. Morelle will be recognized as a
non-Committee Member after all of the Committee Members have
been recognized. So we'll now recognize the gentlelady from
Michigan, Mrs. McClain.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Poliakoff, can I
start with just a simple question, is do you believe a four-
year degree is the only pathway for success for students in the
workplace?
Mr. Poliakoff. Absolutely not.
Mrs. McClain. So my question is there seems to be a
disconnect right? The workforce, at least the people in my
district, is clamoring for people with skilled trades, yet our
four-year college degrees don't always match those needs, which
is what's happening right now.
Is there any reason right now why we can't use that Pell
Grant? Because right now the Pell Grant is only for the two and
the four-year colleges, correct? Is there any reason why we
couldn't use those Pell Grants to actually fill that skilled
trades gap for some shorter period of institutional
certificates or what not?
Mr. Poliakoff. This is a very, very important frontier, and
on career training, whether it's for profit or non-profit that
has good accountability measures and good metrics, is an
entirely appropriate place for Federal money. Getting people
into family sustaining wages, and very often with a pathway
should they ever want to go back to four-year institutions.
Mrs. McClain. So you would be open to using some of those
Federal funds to really bridge--on the Pell Grant, to really
bridge that gap for accredited certified programs, obviously,
less than a four-year, or a 2-year traditional college
perspective.
Mr. Poliakoff. Yes. And----
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, sir. With that I yield my time
back. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. The gentlelady's time has expired, she yielded
back. Now we've got finally to Mr. Morelle, the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, first of all for
allowing me, although I'm not a Member of this Subcommittee,
I'm obviously an excited Member of the Education and Labor
Committee, and you've done me an honor to let me just speak for
a few moments, so thank you and Chairman Wilson for having what
I think is a really, really important issue about Pell Grants.
And I very much appreciate the witnesses sharing their
stories and their perspective. I want to acknowledge the former
SUNY Albany President. I served a long time in the State
legislature on the Higher Education Committee, and I have a
son, Nicholas, who has a degree from SUNY Albany, so I
appreciate you for all of your work and I'm sorry we've lost
you to Illinois, but I know you're doing great work there.
And to Ms. Suriel who is from I think is from the Bronx,
but then studying in Manhattan, so as a New Yorker, I'm
grateful for the great representation from the great State of
New York. But I wanted to focus in on a specific thing as it
relates to Pell Grants. I'm very supporting of expanding Pell
Grants. I think they're critically important.
I appreciate Representative Good's story, and other's
stories about who have used Pell Grants, and it's really made a
significant difference in their life. I wanted to talk about
students with disabilities, and the question about the
requirement of full caseloads in order to qualify for Pell.
And in many cases folks who have disabilities are
struggling with some of the challenges of that and need
additional time to complete course work for graduation, but the
obstacles they face in many cases prevent them from receiving
and accessing the full Pell Grant award.
So I'm working on ways to reduce barriers to education for
students with disability in my district, and throughout the
Nation, I'm working on a bill that would allow Pell Grant
flexibility for applicable students, while still maintaining
progress toward graduation and aligning affordability and
accessibility in addition to setting students with disabilities
up to gain Meaningful Employment opportunity, which is
obviously the goal, or is at least part of the goal.
I wonder Chancellor if you might be able to just give me
some perspective. Does the current structure of Pell Grants as
it relates to students with disabilities to create barriers
that make it hard for them to be successful? I think you're on
mute sir.
Mr. Jones. Thank you Representative. You know we take a lot
of pride on the fact that this university was one that did a
lot of the innovation through Ted Nugent and others to make
this campus very accessible to students with disabilities. And
to my knowledge the Pell Grant component of that in terms of
financial accessibility to this university isn't an obstacle.
I will do some further checking on that, but not to my
knowledge.
Mr. Morelle. OK.
Mr. Jones. The biggest issue is making sure we've got the
accommodations that are absolutely critical for students to be
able to physically navigate the campus, and that's why as I
said, we were the ones that invented curb cuts to allow people
in wheelchairs equal access.
We have an entirely new building that's being designed so
everybody can access that building equally, you know, whether
you need accessibility or not. But the biggest issue is the
kind of services we provide in one of our dormitories where we
provide full accommodation for students that need that kind of
help, you know, regardless of what their disability might be.
And so that's where we think the biggest need is, is to
make sure that we are providing accessibility for students that
need it in terms of physical accessibility to all of our campus
resources that we are providing you know, making sure that
everything that we send out across the campus in terms of mass
mails are equally accessible to all.
That's the biggest challenge we face more so than any
problem, I believe regarding Pell as it relates to
accessibility, but I'd be more than happy to look into that and
get back to you with more detail.
Mr. Morelle. Well I would love to, first of all thank you
for your leadership on this and the importance of making sure
that we you know have a least restrictive setting for people
with disabilities to achieve a college degree and achieve their
dream. I would love to come back to you, and I will because I
have a letter from the Association of Higher Education and
Disability, a group called AHEAD on the question of
intellectually developmentally disabled students obtaining a
degree in higher education.
And they've raised concerns, so without objection, Mr.
Chair, I'd like to submit the letter from that group for the
record, but I would love to come back and talk to you about
those challenges so that we can perhaps look for a legislative
way to advance the interests of all people by issuing higher
education. With that Mr. Chair I yield back, again thank you
for your indulgence.
Mr. Scott. Without objection your request, your letter will
be admitted.
Mr. Scott. I'm not aware of other Members who have not been
recognized. If not, Dr. Murphy do you have a closing statement?
The gentleman from North Carolina, Dr. Murphy is recognized for
a closing statement, when he unmutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman am, I good?
Mr. Scott. You're good.
Mr. Murphy. All right thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
want to say thank you to all of the panelists today. I think
we've learned a lot and had some great discussions. We're
obviously on different levels of where we feel this pathway
should go, but I appreciate nonetheless the very robust and
very good conversation today.
I think that everybody agrees that Pell Grants have been an
extraordinary and powerful tool in helping low-income students
across this Nation access a post-secondary education. It's
afforded opportunity for so many individuals who have benefited
from this program.
But today we talked a lot about root cases when it is
convenient, and for some reason we're failing to address the
root causes behind why we have seen skyrocketing student debt.
Instead, the answer is to pour more money into a system that
honestly is broken, and has been failing our students, and
saddling them with tremendous debt.
As I mentioned earlier when hospitals and physicians had
Medicare rates cut to them, they found a way to cut costs, save
money, and at the same time increase quality of care. Why can
higher education not do the same? They cannot and will not
until they are held accountable. Throwing more money at them is
literally opposite of what we should be doing in rewarding bad
behavior.
Colleges need to do their part in keeping costs down and
ensure that their students actually graduate with a useful
degree. As students with diverse backgrounds seek out post-
graduate, post-secondary education, colleges, and universities
need to do a better job of serving their unique needs.
It's time for college administrators to come down from
their ivory towers and serve the students coming through the
door, rather than forcing the students to rearrange their lives
to enter academia and then force subsequently, straddling them
with enormous student debt upon graduation.
Once a student is enrolled, they need to gain the skills
that they need whether they be welding, critical thinking, or
problem-solving in the most efficient, cost-effective, and
effective way possible. That is simply not happening right now.
We have seen an explosion of college majors that offer students
no chance of gainful employment upon graduation, and only
saddle them with monstrous debt.
As we reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we need to have
a serious conversation about what is standing in the way of
colleges and universities from lowering their costs, and
subsequently better serving their students.
Again let me be very clear, we want to help our students,
especially low-income students and give them every opportunity
to a pathway to a successful career. The jobs are out there. We
need to get the students the skills that they need to get hired
and thrive after college and subsequently not be able to move
forward because they're straddled with debt.
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing. Again, I
thank the participants, I look forward to continuing these
conversations in the months to come, thank you Mr. Chairman, I
will yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I remind my
colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice materials for
submission for the hearing record must be submitted to the
Committee Clerk within 14 days following the last day of the
hearing, so that's by close of business August 12, preferably
in Microsoft Word format.
Material submitted must address the subject matter of the
hearing. Only a Member of the Subcommittee or an invited
witness may submit materials for inclusion into the record.
Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents longer than
50 pages will be incorporated into the record by way of an
internet link which you must provide to the Committee Clerk
within the required timeframe, but you have to recognize that
in the future that link may no longer work.
Pursuant to House rules and regulations, items for the
record should be submitted to the Clerk electronically by
emailing submissions to [email protected]. So
I want to thank our witnesses for their participation today.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for
you, and we ask witnesses to please respond to those questions
in writing.
The hearing record will be held open for 14 days, and I
remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice,
witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted by
the Majority Staff within seven days, and the questions
submitted must address the subject matter of the hearing.
I'll now recognize myself for the purpose of closing
statement. I want to thank our expert witnesses for an engaging
dialog, and for your commitment to student success. Today we
reflected on the urgent need to expand low-income student
access to affordable, high-quality public education, and our
responsibility to help all students complete their degrees.
Even before COVID-19, many public four-year institutions
enrolled and graduated far too few low-income students. Now as
we've heard from our witnesses, this problem has only been
exacerbated by the college closures and severe disruptions
caused by the pandemic.
While Congress provided direct relief to help institutions
and students weather the pandemic, persistent barriers to
education still exist for underserved students. This is why we
need bold, legislative solutions to lower the cost of college
and support student success. Like the American Families Plan
and the Pell Grant Preservation Expansion Act, and the bill
that Congressman Pocan and I introduced in June.
As a Pell Grant recipient, with Ms. Suriel and Dr. Ortagus,
exemplified the life changing impact of Pell Grants and public
higher education can have on our Nation's students. Likewise,
Chancellor Jones's testimony provides a model for
transformational efforts that our institutions can employ to
leverage the Pell Grant and support student success.
And we should take note of this testimony that a
significant portion of the value of a college education occurs
outside the classroom, and so the opportunity for a liberal
arts education should still be available to all, even if it is
not technically monetized or otherwise job related. That
opportunity still ought to be available.
We must invest in strengthening and expanding access to
these critical resources so that every person can learn and
earn the lasting benefits that come with a quality degree. So
again, I want to thank our witnesses, and I look forward to
building back a better higher education system in which
everyone can succeed.
And if there's no further business to come before the
Committee, without objection the Subcommittee now stands
adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Chairman Scott follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submission by Mr. Morelle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[all]