A new product for loan repayment, SafeStart, officially launched its website today. The product promises to ease students' anxieties about repaying their college loans by offering to make payments for three years if students face financial hardship.
See today's Inside Higher Ed article for a good description of the details, the pros and cons, and the uncertainties around who this might help.
One thing is certain - this is an innovative product and probably the first to tap into a growing anxiety among students and parents over ever-increasing debt loads. So what does a product like SafeStart say about the state of higher education? That it costs too much. That it relies too much on student debt for revenue. And that paying for college, both up-front and after the fact, is causing a lot of angst.
Friday, August 07, 2009
House vs. Senate Higher Ed Earmarks
Are the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives heading for a fight over higher ed earmarks in their 2010 appropriations bills? The earmark figures in both bills indicate yes. But don't be fooled. The lack of overlap between funding priorities means the level of postsecondary pork is only likely to grow.
All told, the Senate bill (PDF) provided $85.6 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) -- the program that contains earmarks for higher education and funds innovative reform projects when money is available. The Senate's figure is about $48.3 million less than what the House provided in its bill.
The funding gap, however, is a bit of an illusion because the two bills only have a few spending priorities in common. The House, for example, provided $52.8 million for the FIPSE comprehensive program -- which gives out competitive innovation grants -- a college textbook rental initiative, and support for veteran student success centers. The Senate did not fund any of these, but instead directed $3.5 million toward the Erma Byrd Scholarship Program, a realtime writing training initiative, and an off-campus community service program.
Earmarks tell a similar story. The Senate provided 110 earmarks under FIPSE, 63 fewer than the House. Of these, however, only 17 appear in both bills. Even when both chambers included an earmark, it was almost always for substantially different amounts of money. The Senate, for example, provided $800,000 for St. Norbert College, double the amount provided in the House. Ironically, the largest earmark difference was the money given to the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. It received $12.6 million from the House but just $1 million from the Lion of the Senate's counterparts.
The biggest earmark winner in the Senate bill appears to be Northern Kentucky University, which got $2.4 million for "purchase of equipment." Equipment must be particularly expensive in the Bluegrass State because the Western Kentucky University Research Foundation received $2 million for the same purpose.
The lack of earmark similarity is bad news for taxpayers. When the conference committee meets to reconcile the two bills, don't be surprised to see the final FIPSE increase because no one is willing to sacrifice their pet project.
But limited earmark overlap also means there are a whole new set of project lowlights to mention:
At least Keene State can turn its pork byproducts into fuel.
All told, the Senate bill (PDF) provided $85.6 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) -- the program that contains earmarks for higher education and funds innovative reform projects when money is available. The Senate's figure is about $48.3 million less than what the House provided in its bill.
The funding gap, however, is a bit of an illusion because the two bills only have a few spending priorities in common. The House, for example, provided $52.8 million for the FIPSE comprehensive program -- which gives out competitive innovation grants -- a college textbook rental initiative, and support for veteran student success centers. The Senate did not fund any of these, but instead directed $3.5 million toward the Erma Byrd Scholarship Program, a realtime writing training initiative, and an off-campus community service program.
Earmarks tell a similar story. The Senate provided 110 earmarks under FIPSE, 63 fewer than the House. Of these, however, only 17 appear in both bills. Even when both chambers included an earmark, it was almost always for substantially different amounts of money. The Senate, for example, provided $800,000 for St. Norbert College, double the amount provided in the House. Ironically, the largest earmark difference was the money given to the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. It received $12.6 million from the House but just $1 million from the Lion of the Senate's counterparts.
The biggest earmark winner in the Senate bill appears to be Northern Kentucky University, which got $2.4 million for "purchase of equipment." Equipment must be particularly expensive in the Bluegrass State because the Western Kentucky University Research Foundation received $2 million for the same purpose.
The lack of earmark similarity is bad news for taxpayers. When the conference committee meets to reconcile the two bills, don't be surprised to see the final FIPSE increase because no one is willing to sacrifice their pet project.
But limited earmark overlap also means there are a whole new set of project lowlights to mention:
- Center for Empowered Living and Learning, Denver, Colo., $300,000 for "an education program on terrorism."
- Dickinson State University, Dickinson, N.D., $600,000 for its Theodore Roosevelt Center, which "is designed to raise the profile of Theodore Roosevelt in North Dakota, to deepen our understanding of one of the most remarkable statesmen and intellectuals in American history, and to convene Roosevelt-related events of local, state, and national significance."
- Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Kalamazoo, Mich., $200,000 for equipment to help train wind turbine technicians.
- Keene State College, Keene, N.H., $100,000 for its Monadnock Biodiesel Collaborative, which hopes to create a plant to convert grease from around New England into biofuel.
- Philadelphia University, Philadelphia, Penn., $100,000 for "equipment relating to science."
- University of Virginia Center for Politics, Charlottesville, Va.,$100,000 for interactive civic lessons for high school students.
At least Keene State can turn its pork byproducts into fuel.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Will Race to the Top Spur a New Generation of Assessment?
Perhaps. Significantly improving student assessment is the real "moon shot" for the stimulus funds.A new Education Week article highlights the potential impact of these funds:
What now seems to be an intractable choice between richer tasks and reliable data, though, could be mediated by advancements in technology that could improve access, cost, and reliability of performance-based testing, some experts argue....Experts add that the infusion of federal cash could also provide more opportunities to devise tests that will better engage teachers in the cognitive science about how knowledge develops over time.But, while Secretary Duncan has set aside $350 million of his “Race to the Top” fund to improve student assessments, plans for these funds remain vague. The article quotes me and others warning that the investment could be wasted if we invest $350 million without thinking differently about our decades-old assessment practices.
Photo: IBM Type 805 Test Scoring Machine, circa 1938
Willful Misunderstanding
Over at the National Journal's group edu-bigwig blog, they're debating the question "Are the Race To the Top Requirements Fair?" A lot of the discussion centers on the RTT requirement that states eliminate prohibitions against linking student test score data with individual teachers. Most of the bloggers are in favor of this, on the grounds that outlawing the use of information about how much students learn in evaluating the extent to which teachers help students learn is insane. But National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel disagrees, writing:
An interesting sort of political science question is just how long the NEA can get away with vague and disingenuous comments like this. Nobody--nobody--wants to judge teachers based purely on the percentage of students who meet a given cut score on a test at the end of the year. That would be crazy. All reasonable conversations about the use of end-of-the-year student test score data for teacher evaluations begin with the assumption that we should (A) account for where students were at the beginning of the year and/or take into account other data about their academic histories, and (B) not rely exclusively on test-score data. Van Roekel knows this. Everybody knows this. The people pushing for the student data-teacher linkages are the same people who want to get more high-quality teachers in the classrooms of disadvantaged students. They're not idiots; of course they don't want to create an unfair evaluation system that would directly counter that goal. But conceding that makes the whole thing seem a lot more rational and then where would the NEA be?
We’re concerned about the effectiveness and reliability of requiring states to link data on student achievement to individual teachers for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation. Teachers who work with disadvantaged students shouldn’t be “evaluated” based on whether their students hit a particular test target on a particular timeline. And we certainly shouldn’t base additional compensation on whether students meet particular testing targets on a particular day. We need to offer incentives so that our best teachers teach the students most in need of assistance, not incentives to teach students most likely to score highest on a standardized test. As with NCLB, good intentions can lead to unintended—and unacceptable—consequences.
An interesting sort of political science question is just how long the NEA can get away with vague and disingenuous comments like this. Nobody--nobody--wants to judge teachers based purely on the percentage of students who meet a given cut score on a test at the end of the year. That would be crazy. All reasonable conversations about the use of end-of-the-year student test score data for teacher evaluations begin with the assumption that we should (A) account for where students were at the beginning of the year and/or take into account other data about their academic histories, and (B) not rely exclusively on test-score data. Van Roekel knows this. Everybody knows this. The people pushing for the student data-teacher linkages are the same people who want to get more high-quality teachers in the classrooms of disadvantaged students. They're not idiots; of course they don't want to create an unfair evaluation system that would directly counter that goal. But conceding that makes the whole thing seem a lot more rational and then where would the NEA be?
Also, it's easy enough to raise the specter of measurement error by talking about "particular testing targets on a particular day." But that requires a level of seriousness and empiricism about how the numbers tend to play out. Measurement error is real and significant but also finite and measurable and thus subject to sensible decision-making and interpretation. If a given teacher's students all consistently fail to meet a particular target on a particular day, year after year, even though most of them were hitting targets in previous years--hey, that might mean something! But acknowledging that would take the conversation to a place the NEA clearly doesn't want to go.
9.5 Scandal Makes its Way to Sallie Mae
While cost and increased aid for low-income students have rightfully dominated the discussion of the proposal to end subsidies for private lenders making federal student loans, it's worth remembering that terminating the bank-based system would also help return integrity to a system with an ever-growing history of scandal and abuse.
Case in point, an audit report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General (PDF), which found that a subsidiary of Sallie Mae -- the country's largest student loan company -- had improperly billed the federal government for an estimated $22.3 million in unwarranted subsidies.
This finding makes Sallie Mae the latest in an increasingly long line of lenders to get caught overbilling the government for student loan subsidies under the "9.5 percent student loan scandal."
The 9.5 percent scandal arose because lenders were taking advantage of an old subsidy rate from the 1980s that allowed them to receive a guaranteed 9.5 percent return on student loans financed by a tax-exempt bond -- a rate significantly higher than what they earn on loans now. Congressional action in 1993 should have prevented the growth of loans receiving this high subsidy rate, but several companies exploited loopholes to substantially increase the number of loans receiving this subsidy rate. Doing so allowed lenders to improperly bill the U.S. Department of Education for at least hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessarily high subsidies until former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings put a stop this abuse in 2007.
(The complete story about the 9.5 scandal, including how the Department of Education granted amnesty to the worst offenders is too long to explain here, but for further reading check out this 2004 report and this blog post series.)
In many respects, the new audit's findings against Sallie Mae are not as bad as what similar audits turned up with regards to Nelnet (PDF) and the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PDF). Unlike those two agencies, Sallie Mae and its affiliate did not exploit loopholes that allowed them to improperly increase the amount of loans eligible for the 9.5 subsidy. The audit did, however, find that Sallie Mae continued billing the government for 9.5 subsidies longer than it should have, allowing it to accumulate $22.3 million in unwarranted payments. Not surprisingly, the lender strongly denies this conclusion, claiming that the inspector general's calculations of 9.5 percent eligibility were flawed.
This is the fifth inspector general audit released released this federal fiscal year that is critical of the bank-based system. It's highly likely that it will not be the last. That's because history has shown that the lenders in the current system have repeatedly found ways to find loopholes or engage in illicit practices that undermine the integrity of the bank-based loan program. Each successful attempt to game the system results in yet another unnecessary instance of waste on the part of taxpayers or students. A transition to 100 percent government lending would certainly not eliminate all corruption in the system. But at least it would be a step toward eliminating the financial incentives and opportunities for abuse that have repeatedly jeopardized the federal student loan program. It might also make life a little less busy for the inspector general.
UPDATE: Higher Ed Watch weighs in with more detail on Sallie Mae's past claims about 9.5.
Case in point, an audit report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General (PDF), which found that a subsidiary of Sallie Mae -- the country's largest student loan company -- had improperly billed the federal government for an estimated $22.3 million in unwarranted subsidies.
This finding makes Sallie Mae the latest in an increasingly long line of lenders to get caught overbilling the government for student loan subsidies under the "9.5 percent student loan scandal."
The 9.5 percent scandal arose because lenders were taking advantage of an old subsidy rate from the 1980s that allowed them to receive a guaranteed 9.5 percent return on student loans financed by a tax-exempt bond -- a rate significantly higher than what they earn on loans now. Congressional action in 1993 should have prevented the growth of loans receiving this high subsidy rate, but several companies exploited loopholes to substantially increase the number of loans receiving this subsidy rate. Doing so allowed lenders to improperly bill the U.S. Department of Education for at least hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessarily high subsidies until former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings put a stop this abuse in 2007.
(The complete story about the 9.5 scandal, including how the Department of Education granted amnesty to the worst offenders is too long to explain here, but for further reading check out this 2004 report and this blog post series.)
In many respects, the new audit's findings against Sallie Mae are not as bad as what similar audits turned up with regards to Nelnet (PDF) and the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PDF). Unlike those two agencies, Sallie Mae and its affiliate did not exploit loopholes that allowed them to improperly increase the amount of loans eligible for the 9.5 subsidy. The audit did, however, find that Sallie Mae continued billing the government for 9.5 subsidies longer than it should have, allowing it to accumulate $22.3 million in unwarranted payments. Not surprisingly, the lender strongly denies this conclusion, claiming that the inspector general's calculations of 9.5 percent eligibility were flawed.
This is the fifth inspector general audit released released this federal fiscal year that is critical of the bank-based system. It's highly likely that it will not be the last. That's because history has shown that the lenders in the current system have repeatedly found ways to find loopholes or engage in illicit practices that undermine the integrity of the bank-based loan program. Each successful attempt to game the system results in yet another unnecessary instance of waste on the part of taxpayers or students. A transition to 100 percent government lending would certainly not eliminate all corruption in the system. But at least it would be a step toward eliminating the financial incentives and opportunities for abuse that have repeatedly jeopardized the federal student loan program. It might also make life a little less busy for the inspector general.
UPDATE: Higher Ed Watch weighs in with more detail on Sallie Mae's past claims about 9.5.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Ironic Twist in the SAT Debate
A growing number of top liberal arts colleges, dissatisfied with the SAT, the reliance on a standardized test in admission decisions, and the college rankings culture that feeds it, have opted to make college entrance exams optional. Anyone who's studied statistics or human behavior could predict the outcome: students with less than stellar SAT scores will opt not to submit them, while those with higher test scores and lower grades will see them as bolstering their chances. Jay Matthews covers a new article documenting just this scenario at 32 SAT-optional schools:
These results should not be surprising. By marketing the SAT as an option, these institutions naturally had more applicants who might not have otherwise applied. But it's ironic that to demonstrate against a manipulable test and a college rankings system that favors institutions that lower their admission rates and increase their test scores, these colleges bolstered their rankings by...lowering their admission rates and increasing their test scores. Funny how that works out.
To see how this affected individual institutions, see this graphic from the NY Times.The result was stunning. Nearly all of them admitted to submitting inflated averages that did not include scores from students who did not submit them during the admissions process. Two refused to comment. Only one of them, Muhlenberg College, reported “a full and honest SAT average, requiring students who took the test to submit scores after enrolling and reporting their SAT average inclusive of those scores,” Epstein said.
This made a significant difference, he discovered. “Publicly available and privately shared data reveal that SAT scores for non-submitters average 100-150 points lower than submitters,” he wrote in his article. “Eliminating those scores for 25 percent to 50 percent of enrolling students results in manufactured SAT average increases between 25 and 75 points. These results imply that 31 of the 32 SAT-optional institutions in question are the beneficiaries of SAT average boosts...”
These results should not be surprising. By marketing the SAT as an option, these institutions naturally had more applicants who might not have otherwise applied. But it's ironic that to demonstrate against a manipulable test and a college rankings system that favors institutions that lower their admission rates and increase their test scores, these colleges bolstered their rankings by...lowering their admission rates and increasing their test scores. Funny how that works out.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Commonplace Corruption
As the Chicago Tribune reported a couple of days ago, University of Illinois trustee Lawrence Eppley has resigned "against the backdrop of a state investigation of a shadow admissions system that gave preferential treatment to students with ties to trustees, politicians and deep-pocketed donors. About 800 undergraduate applicants had their names placed on clout lists, known internally as Category I, at the Urbana-Champaign campus during the last five years, a Tribune investigation found. Dozens more received special consideration from the law school and other graduate programs."
Now, it'd be easy enough to use this merely as a point for Illinois in the Great American Corrupt-o-Thon it seems to be contesting against the state of New Jersey , or to chuckle at the inevitable appearance of the words "whose law firm donated $105,000 to Blagojevich's campaigns."
Now, it'd be easy enough to use this merely as a point for Illinois in the Great American Corrupt-o-Thon it seems to be contesting against the state of New Jersey , or to chuckle at the inevitable appearance of the words "whose law firm donated $105,000 to Blagojevich's campaigns."
But really, isn't the only out-of-the-ordinary thing here that the people in Illinois were dumb enough to give their list an official name? It's been well-documented that many selective colleges and universities use their admissions processes in all manner of self-serving and untoward ways as a means of garnering money, fame, and political power. Admissions are the coin of the realm in elite higher education and it's not surprising that institutions can, if they so decide, spend it for corrupt purposes. What's surprising is that they usually get away with it and manage to keep their elevated reputations intact.
The justifications for this kind of behavior are always the same, and always absurd. In no particular order:
- The students admitted through our corrupt process were qualified (variant: they can "do the work.") Any selective college turns away tons of students who were, in theory, "qualified" to attend, in the sense that they met some absolute minimum standard (not that you'd be able to actually find said standard if you asked.) That's more or less the definition of "selective." The best 500 students Urbana-Champaign rejected last year were probably all but indistinguishable from the worst 500 students they accepted. All if this happens well inside the margins of "qualified," however defined. The question is who was most qualified, and admissions is a zero-sum game. The whole point of accessing the corrupt process is to bump out someone more qualified than you, otherwise why spend the money and/or political capital?
- Only a small number of students were admitted through our corrupt process (variant #1: "they only get a little push"; variant #2 "only if all else was equal"). Being a little bit corrupt is like being a little bit pregnant. If you only break the law a couple of days a year, you still go to prison. Etc. I imagine most colleges and universities have someone in the philosophy department who could explain the ethics here.
- Admitting students through our corrupt process benefits the university financially via donations and state appropriations, which are in turn used for virtuous purposes such as need-based financial aid. College admissions is, again, a zero-sum game, and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that well-qualified low-income students generally don't have a special in with the governor or the trustees or the development office. It doesn't do a low-income students much good to drop extra money into the need-based aid fund if they can't access it because they weren't accepted because their slot went to the less-qualified child of some guy who wrote some other guy a big fat check. Education Sector could do all kinds of wonderful new education policy things if I robbed a bank this evening and deposited the money in our account, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
- There's no official list or policy, our development people and admissions people just, you know, sit down to talk from time to time. Over coffee. To talk about the weather. And things. Right.
In the end, these practices persist because they're a kind of genteel, behind-closed-doors corruption, veiled by the deliberate vagueness of the admissions process and given a sheen of respectability by institutions that we look to for intellectual and cultural leadership. A lot of the people in positions of power within the government and certain business circles benefitted from these policies and hope their children will too. I imagine they think of themselves as generally moral people and aren't all that interested in thinking otherwise.
But that doesn't make it any less wrong. There's a simple test to apply here. Selective colleges and universities have Web sites with information for applicants that include admissions criteria. My alma mater, for example, includes things like "strength of high school record," "depth and overall quality of application essay," "standardized test scores," "extracurricular activities," and "proven ability to think and act independently." Colleges should ask themselves: is this a complete list? Does it include items like "father runs a hedge fund" or "uncle recently gave the governor a lot of money" or "mother is long-time majority leader of state senate"? No? Then those kinds of things shouldn't matter in admissions. If you'd be embarrassed to write it down and put it on your Web site, there's a reason.
And, since you asked: No, I don't think affirmative action is a corrupt process per above. There's a difference between naked bribe-taking and contributing to larger social goals of diversity and justice.
Taking Your College to Court
A college should be responsible for the career prospects of its graduates. That's the conceit put forth by Trina Thompson, a 27-year-old graduate of Monroe College, who is suing her alma mater for the $70,000 she paid for tuition because she has not been able to been able to find a job since graduating in April with a bachelor's degree in information technology.
In addition to its high likelihood of a quick dismissal, the suit seems pretty specific to Monroe. The school bills itself as providing "professional, career oriented higher education to students from diverse backgrounds" and plays up how it uses this focus to "to prepare graduates for successful careers." Since Thompson claims the school did not meet these promises, schools with less of an overt job emphasis would probably not have to worry about copycat suits.
But what if a judge found that Monroe's promises of career assistance should be held to a meaningful standard? What existing data could the school present to show that it in fact did not rip off its graduates and that it does provide an education that leads to reasonable workplace success?
The answer appears to be not much. Monroe's Web site talks a lot about career information and opportunities, but provides little in the way of figures. Statewide data is little better. An Education Sector study of all 50 state higher education accountability systems plus the District of Columbia found that New York collects a fair amount of information on students' postsecondary educational success, but only for public colleges and universities.
Federal data provide more information about Monroe, but nothing on employment status. The school's 2006 cohort default rate -- the percentage of student loan borrowers that left school in 2006 and defaulted within two years -- was higher than the national average, but it's impossible to know how many of those students graduated and then defaulted because they could not find a job. Likewise, the school's federal graduation rate figure of 70 percent does not help either since Thompson graduated and was not able to find a job.
In short, unless Monroe is sitting on a storehouse of data it chooses not to publicize, it would have a hard time showing whether its business-oriented education is worth the money or not. If Monroe does have this information, then the question becomes why not publicize it sooner?
To be sure, Monroe data will not be the reason why Thompson's lawsuit succeeds or fails. But consider the flip side. If Monroe could produce meaningful data demonstrating the success (immediate and long-term) of its graduates -- something that makes sense for a school focused on vocational training -- wouldn't that be a very useful marketing tool? Rather than resorting to vague statements about maximizing student success, it could use that information to make a compelling case for why students should attend Monroe rather than a competitor institution. It might also help incoming students get a better sense of just what to expect once they enter that post-graduation workforce.
In addition to its high likelihood of a quick dismissal, the suit seems pretty specific to Monroe. The school bills itself as providing "professional, career oriented higher education to students from diverse backgrounds" and plays up how it uses this focus to "to prepare graduates for successful careers." Since Thompson claims the school did not meet these promises, schools with less of an overt job emphasis would probably not have to worry about copycat suits.
But what if a judge found that Monroe's promises of career assistance should be held to a meaningful standard? What existing data could the school present to show that it in fact did not rip off its graduates and that it does provide an education that leads to reasonable workplace success?
The answer appears to be not much. Monroe's Web site talks a lot about career information and opportunities, but provides little in the way of figures. Statewide data is little better. An Education Sector study of all 50 state higher education accountability systems plus the District of Columbia found that New York collects a fair amount of information on students' postsecondary educational success, but only for public colleges and universities.
Federal data provide more information about Monroe, but nothing on employment status. The school's 2006 cohort default rate -- the percentage of student loan borrowers that left school in 2006 and defaulted within two years -- was higher than the national average, but it's impossible to know how many of those students graduated and then defaulted because they could not find a job. Likewise, the school's federal graduation rate figure of 70 percent does not help either since Thompson graduated and was not able to find a job.
In short, unless Monroe is sitting on a storehouse of data it chooses not to publicize, it would have a hard time showing whether its business-oriented education is worth the money or not. If Monroe does have this information, then the question becomes why not publicize it sooner?
To be sure, Monroe data will not be the reason why Thompson's lawsuit succeeds or fails. But consider the flip side. If Monroe could produce meaningful data demonstrating the success (immediate and long-term) of its graduates -- something that makes sense for a school focused on vocational training -- wouldn't that be a very useful marketing tool? Rather than resorting to vague statements about maximizing student success, it could use that information to make a compelling case for why students should attend Monroe rather than a competitor institution. It might also help incoming students get a better sense of just what to expect once they enter that post-graduation workforce.
Neighbors
In an illustrative example of how states differ in the way they are reacting to economic shortfalls, here's how Illinois is meeting their financial obligations:
Consider these cuts against the example provided by neighboring Indiana:The state will deny the financial aid applications of an estimated 130,000 students -- the most in Illinois history.
They were denied because they applied for state aid after May 15, a cutoff months earlier than in years past, thanks to Springfield's budget woes.
Hardest hit? Students at community colleges and returning adult students, because they tend to apply for aid later.
What's more, under the state budget compromise reached earlier this month, which slashed funding for the state's Monetary Award Program in half, no student at any Illinois school will receive aid for the second half of the 2009-2010 school year....
The cuts in state support for the program come as more students submitted applications for aid than ever before. Through June, nearly 200,000 eligible students -- 27 percent more than at the same time last year -- sought aid.
With a budget of $385 million, the state was able to grant more than 145,000 awards of up to nearly $5,000 to students who applied by mid-August last year. That's the typical cutoff. But this year, with more eligible students applying and half the money, the date was moved up to May 15.
Last year, 65 percent of the students who applied after mid-May attended community colleges, meaning those types of students will be hardest hit this year.
The Indiana Department of Workforce Development today announced a new program today that will provide $6,000 over two years to pay for students to earn an associate’s degree or a vocational certificate.It's a tough time for state budgets, and, while these articles say nothing about the particular difficulties of each state, they do serve as a reminder that the way policymakers deal with crises matters.
The scholarships, called Workforce Acceleration Grants, are earmarked for unemployed workers or their spouses, or students from impoverished families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)