ERIC ED596864: Indicators of Opportunity in Higher Education. 2005 Status Report

2005·0.32 MB·English

by  ERIC

INDICATORS
of Opportunity in Higher Education
2005
STATUS
REPORT
T P I
HE ELL NSTITUTE
for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education
THE PELL INSTITUTE
The Pell Institute, sponsored by the
Council for Opportunity in Education,
conducts and disseminates research and
policy analysis to encourage policy-
makers, educators, and the public to
improve educational opportunities and
outcomes of low-income, first-generation,
and disabled college students.
For further information contact:
The Pell Institute for the
Advisory Committee:
Study of Opportunity
in Higher Education Christopher Brown,
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW American Association of
Suite 1020 Colleges for Teacher Education
Washington, DC 20005
Alberto Cabrera,
Tel.: [phone]
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Fax: [phone]
www.pellinstitute.org David Evans,
Educational Policy Consultant
Director: Colleen O’Brien
LeonardHaynes,
Senior Scholars: FIPSE/U.S. Department of
Education
Adolfo Bermeo,
Former Assistant Vice Provost for Student Donald Heller,
Diversity and Community College Pennsylvania State University
Partnerships, UCLA Sara Melendez,
Marshall Grigsby, George Washington University
Senior Advisor to the President, GaryOrfield,
Council for Opportunity in Education The Civil Rights Project/
Thomas Mortenson, Harvard University
PostsecondaryOPPORTUNITY Orlando Taylor,
Lana Muraskin, Howard University Graduate School
Former VP of SMB Economic Research, Inc. Elizabeth Thomas,
Louis Stokes, Higher Education Academy/
Former Member of Congress, Ohio The Network Centre (York, UK)
Vincent Tinto, Thomas Wolanin,
Chair, Higher Education Program, Institute for Higher Education Policy
Syracuse University
The Council for
Wayne Upshaw,
Opportunity in Education
U.S. Department of State
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.coenet.us
CONTENTS
Foreword .................................................................................3
Setting the Stage ..............PostsecondaryEducation in the United States .....................4
..............................Who Are Low-Income Students?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Indicators ................Indicator One: Who Goes to College? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Indicator Two: Where Do They Go?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Indicator Three: What Do Students Pay for College?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Indicator Four: What Percentage of Family Income
Does It Take to Pay for College? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Indicator Five: Who Graduates from College?.....................11
What Does it Mean?.......................................................................12
Acknowledgements:
This report was written by We would also like to acknowledge
Colleen O’Brien, Director, with ana- the contributions of those who
lytic support from Jennifer Engle, provided analytic guidance including
Research Analyst, at the Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary
Pell Institute. Kelley Downs and OPPORTUNITYand Senior Scholar at
Nicole Norfles of the Pell Institute the Pell Institute, and John Lee of JBL
and Maureen Hoyler, Susan Trebach, Associates. In addition we would like
and Jodi Koehn-Pike of the Council to thank the members of the Pell
for Opportunity in Education also Institute Advisory Committee, as well
provided support and feedback as the Senior Scholars, who provide
while the report was in progress. ongoing feedback on the Indicators
report.
We heartily acknowledge the efforts
of these individuals and recognize
that they are not responsible for any
errors of omission or interpretation
contained in this report.
INDICATORS 2 FALL 2005
FOREWORD
IN FALL 2004,the Pell Institute for the Study of The challenge is how to present information that
Opportunity in Higher Education released the will stimulate thoughtful discussion while being care-
first Indicators of Opportunity in Higher Education. ful not to assume too much in making conclusions—
The inaugural report was well-received, including twoyears of data does not a trend make. We present
praise from the higher education community, this second report with the goal of building on our
press coverage, and policymaker discussions of the knowledge base and continuing to inform a broad
issues and data presented in the report. The first audience about the status of opportunity for higher
report can be found on the Pell Institute website, education in the United States. Data presented in
www.pellinstitute.org. the indicators are from the 1999-2000 and 2000-01
academic years—the Indicators report series began
In compiling this second report, we had several
with 1999-2000 as the baseline year.
goals in mind:
An important addition this year is the inclusion of
n Maintain consistency with the indicators first
an indicator that addresses a key financial issue—the
presented in last year’s report.
percentage of family income that is needed to cover
n Build on that body of data by adding appropriate the cost of college. This indicator gives greater
indicators that express something meaningful depth to understanding what college costs mean in
about opportunity for higher education, particu- the context of a family budget and therefore, how
larly for low-income students and their families. much college opportunity can vary by income. As
noted when we released the first report, we intend
n Continue the conversation begun last year about
to add to the indicators presented over time.
the importance of the issue of opportunity not
just for those individuals who may or may not be Finally, the essential goal of this report remains to
able to participate in education beyond the high raise the visibility of the issue of postsecondary
school level, but for the nation as a whole. opportunity in the United States. Much as the first
report allowed a dialogue to begin or be renewed,
with this second report, we can continue to engage
colleagues, policymakers, and the general public
about the importance of postsecondaryopportunity.
INDICATORS 3 FALL 2005
SETTING
THE STAGE
OPPORTUNITY FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION Postsecondary Education
continues to be a key to success for most Americans, in the United States
particularly those from low-income backgrounds.
The U.S. system of education beyond the high
Every year, data citing the benefits of increased
school level includes 4,100 degree-granting institu-
education for individuals are released—including
tions. Forty-two percent of these institutions are pub-
recent information released by the U.S. Census
lic (15 percent four-year and 27 percent two-year),
Bureau (2005) regarding the increased earnings
42 percent are private not-for profit institutions (38
enjoyed by college graduates.
percent four-year and 4 percent two-year), and 16
This past year also featured reports and projects that percent are private, for-profit institutions (4 percent
highlight the broader societal benefits realized from four-year and 12 percent two-year). This represents a
greater participation in higher education. For exam- slight decrease in the percentage of private, for-prof-
ple, the College Board (2004) added the publication it institutions, down from 19 percent in 1999-2000.
Education Paysto their series Trends in Student Aid
In 2000-2001, average tuition and fees at public
and Trends in College Prices.This report looks at the
four-year institutions was $3,226, while at private
effects of college participation on earnings and
four-year institutions, the average tuition and fees
other areas such as unemployment, incarceration,
was $14,003. At public two-year institutions, the
volunteering, and civic participation. The Institute
average tuition and fees was $1,328 (Chronicle of
for Higher Education Policy (2005) also released
Higher Education, 2001).
The Investment Payoff: A 50-State Analysis of the Public
and Private Benefits of Higher Education,examining
Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in the U.S.,
similar data on a state-by-state basis to look at the
2000-2001
relationship between state investment in and payoff
from higher education. Private Public
For-Profit Four-Year
Both reports frame the economic and social benefits 16% 15%
that accrue from postsecondaryeducation for individ- Private
uals and society.Increased awareness of this combina- Two-Year
Not-for-Profit
tion of benefits is vital to preserving the public invest- 4%
ment in postsecondary education opportunity. If the
argument for public support of opportunity focuses
too much on the individual economic gains to be Public Private
made from a college degree, the impetus for public Two-Year Four-Year
27% Not-for-Profit
investment is lessened. The result? Increased reliance 38%
on financial aid in the form of self-help such as loans
and work, decreased support for grant aid, and the
Source:Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001.
potential for more low-income and disadvantaged
students to get only as much education as they can
afford, not as much as they, or the country, need in In Fall 2000, nearly 12,500,000 undergraduate
order to succeed in the long term. As a recent report studentswere enrolled, with approximately 1.8
from the National Center for Public Policy and million more enrolled at the graduate level. More
Higher Education (2005) demonstrates, without than two-thirds of all undergraduates are enrolled
improvement in the educational levels of the nation’s in the four-year sector,while approximately 90
workforce, the United States faces such consequences percent of all undergraduates are enrolled in
as lower personal income, a decreased tax base, and public institutions. The percentage of students
reduced competitiveness in the global marketplace. who are women and who are a minority held steady
INDICATORS 4 FALL 2005
Dependent Low-Income Students Compared to Independent Low-Income Students Compared to
Dependent High-Income Peers Independent High-Income Peers
More likely to be female More likely to be female
More likely to be African American, Hispanic, Asian More likely to be African American, Hispanic, Asian
Same median age as high-income peers Median age 12 years younger than high-income peers
More likely to be a first-generation college student More likely to be a first-generation college student
More likely to have a disability More likely to have a disability
(although types of disability vary by income) (although types of disability vary by income)
More likely to be enrolled in a certificate or associate’s degree program More likely to be enrolled in a certificate or a BA program
More likely to have taken remedial courses, especially in reading More likely to have taken remedial courses
Sources:Dependent students:NCES, 2000;Independent students:Horn, Peter, and Rooney, 2002.
at 56 and 27 percent, respectively. In 2000-01, more One very important distinction to be made about
than 1.7 undergraduate degrees were awarded, two- low-income students is their dependency status. For
thirds were bachelor’s degrees (Chronicle of Higher purposes of eligibility for federal financial aid, the
Education, 2001). U.S. Department of Education defines independent
students as those who are age 24 or older, married,
Who Are Low-Income Students? single with dependents of their own, veterans, or in
graduate school. A student who meets any one of those
The major focus of the Indicators report is the
conditions is independent; all others are considered
breakdown of postsecondaryopportunity by
dependent, or still dependent on their parents’
income—how low-income students participate in
income.Fifty-two percent of all low-income students
comparison to students from middle and higher
are independent, and 48 percent are dependent. This
income families. But while the indicators report the
is similar to the overall split for all undergraduate stu-
data for low-income students as a whole, it is hardly
dents, 51 percent independent, 49 percent dependent.
true that this is a homogenous group. An examina-
tion of data from the U.S. Department of Education Several differences emerge between independent
reveals some interesting information about this and dependent low-income students, as well as
diverse group of students. between these two groups of students and their
peers from higher income levels. For example, the
Overall, approximately one-fifth of all undergradu-
median age for dependent low-income students is
ate students are low-income.1Even though it is hard
the same as it is for higher income dependent peers
to describe all low-income students as one group,
(age 19), but for independent low-income students
there are certain characteristics that are more
the median age is lower (age 25) than it is for higher
common among them in comparison to their higher
income independent students (age 37). Both inde-
income peers. For example, low-income students are
pendent and dependent low-income students are
more likely than high-income students to be:
more likely to be in a certificate program than high-
n female, income students, but dependent low-income students
n African American, Hispanic, or Asian, are more likely to be enrolled in an associate’sdegree
n the first generation in their family to go to college, program, while independent low-income students
are more likely to be enrolled in a bachelor’sdegree
n classified as having a disability,2and
program, than their higher income peers.
n in need of remediation when they start
postsecondaryeducation.3
1Income as it is used here refers to both family income and individual income:
19 percent of dependent students are low-income (family income under
$25,000) and 20 percent of independent students are low-income (individual
income under $10,000).
2Disability is defined broadly as any physical or learning disability that
causes difficulty.
3All refer to both independent and dependent students;the trends are same
for both groups.
INDICATORS 5 FALL 2005
THE INDICATORS
Indicator One: Who Goes to College? group were enrolled or attended college, a gap of
Using data collected annually by the U.S. Census 25 and 44 percentage points, respectively, compared
Bureau, we can examine the participation of 18- to to low-income students.
24-year-olds in college. While this indicator obviously
Comparing these data to 1999–2000 data reveals some
does not encompass all students in the postsecondary
interesting movement in the college participation rate.
system—34 percent of students enrolled are age 25
The participation rate declined overall, from 59 to 57
and older (NCES, 2004a)—it does provide a good
percent. The participation rate actually declined for all
framework for what is traditionally thought of as
income groups, with the largest decrease—4 percent-
the college-going years in this country. Increasingly,
age points—among the low-income students.
more students delay enrollment until they are older.
However, by focusing on this age group we can As mentioned in the foreword, it is difficult to con-
examine one of the critical transitions and clude that a trend is developing after only two years.
determine what gaps exist by income. If there are In the first indicators report, we provided some
gaps here, we can be certain they are worse when historical data to give a context to the participation
we look at older, non-traditional students from the numbers, showing that participation over time had
low-income group. improved, but gaps between the groups remained.
If we put the 2000-01 data in that same context,
In2000-01, approximately 57 percent of all 18- to
sizeable gaps remain between income groups, and
24-year-olds were in college or had attended college.
even more troubling, we see participation sliding
When we break down the overall number into income
back for all groups, particularly low-income students.5
groups (low,middle, and high),4there are distinctive
Indicator Two: Where Do They Go?
gaps between the income groups. Only 31 percent of
low-income students were enrolled in or had attended Recently, in lieu of talking about postsecondary
college, substantially lower than the overall rate. Fifty- opportunity, the phrase “economic diversity” has
six percent of students from the middle-income group become more in fashion. Essentially this means the
and 75 percent of students from the high-income number of low-income students enrolled at a given
college or university, but this is difficult to know
Indicator 1:Percent of Dependent 18- to 24-Year Olds since colleges do not, as a general practice, track
Who Enrolled in or Attended CollegebyFamilyIncome their student body by income levels. Frequently,
institutions have income data only for those students
Low- 31 2000-2001 who apply for financial aid. While the availability
e Income 35 1999-2000 and quality of this data can vary from one institution
m
o to another, trying to obtain national enrollment
Inc Middle- 56 data by income, especially annual data, is even
mily Income 58 more challenging. Through datasets like the U.S.
a
F Department of Education’s National Postsecondary
High- 75
Student Aid Survey (NPSAS), we are able to
Income 78
0 20 40 60 80
Percent
Source:Census Bureau, 1999, 2000.
4Unless otherwise noted, income is broken down in this report as: 5According to Census data, in 1970 the gap between the lowest income and
low-income—under $25,000;middle-income—$25,000 to $74,999;and highest income groups was 46 percentage points, 28 percent for low-income
high-income—$75,000 and above. compared to 74 percent for high-income students (Mortenson, 2005).
INDICATORS 6 FALL 2005
understand a great deal about financial aid.
Indicator 2:Undergraduate Enrollment
Unfortunately, this survey is only conducted by Institution Type and Control
approximately every three years.
2000-01, All
Undergraduates 37 43 16 13
Auseful proxy for low-income students on campus
is the population of Pell Grant recipients at a college 2000-01, Pell
32 36 15 3 14
Grant Recipients
or university. The Pell Grant is a federal student
aid program that provides grant aid assistance to Und1e9rg9r9a-d0u0a, tAesll 38 42 17 12
the neediest students. The U.S. Department of
1999-00, Pell
Education reports information about the program, 33 36 15 3 14
Grant Recipients
including income levels of recipients and enrollment,
on an annual basis. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Looking at where Pell Grant recipients attend college
nPublic Four-Year nPublic Two-Year nPrivate Four-Year
provides a way to answer the question of where low- nPrivate Two-Year nFor Profit
income students go. In combination with data from
Note:Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Surveys Source:U.S.Department of Education, 2001, and NCES, 2002.
(IPEDS), we can see where Pell Grant recipients are
enrolled, compared to all undergraduate students.6
Another way to think about the data presented in
Among Pell Grant recipients, the highest number and this indicator is whether Pell Grant recipients are
percentage of students were enrolled in public-two over- or under-represented in a given sector com-
year institutions. The sector with the next highest pared to their overall presence in higher education.8
concentration was public-four-year institutions. In Pell Grant recipients were 29 percent of the under-
comparison to the distribution of all undergraduates, graduate population in both 2000-01 and 1999-2000.
Pell Grant recipients enrolled in higher percentages Therefore, they were under-represented in the pub-
at private two-year and for-profit institutions. Pell lic two- and four-year sectors—25 and 26 percent
Grant recipients enrolled in lower percentages than respectively—and in the private four-year sector as
all undergraduates at public two- and four-year well, 24 percent. Pell Grant recipients were over-
institutions and private four-year institutions. The represented in the private-two year and for-profit
patterns were similar from 1999-2000 to 2000-01.7 sectors.9The percentages were similar in the
1999–2000 data.
Put simply,these data show us that the enrollment
patterns of Pell Grant recipients differ greatly from Enrollment in the public two-year sector shows
the overall undergraduate population. The most Pell Grant recipients and all undergraduates
telling case is in the for-profit sector—low-income enrolled at almost the same percentage, over
students are five times more likely to enroll in one-third of students. However, it is likely that
proprietary institutions than the undergraduate more low-income students attend two-year colleges,
population as a whole. or community colleges as they are more frequently
6The use of Pell Grant data for Indicator Two represents two significant changes: 8This calculation includes full- and part-time undergraduates enrolled in all
1) Despite a strong desire to maintain consistency from one year to the next, the institutions (degree-granting and non-degree-granting) participating in Title IV
source for this indicator has changed from the inaugural report.In the first report, federal financial aid programs.Data are from the US Department of Education’s
weused information from the HERI Annual Survey of College Freshmen,but the Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Reports and the Digest of Education Statistics.
survey has been changed and no longer includes two-year institutions, a sig-
nificant sector for low-income students.2) Using Pell Grant and IPEDS data 9There maybe some discrepancies between enrollment figures because the
provides information on low-income students and allows us to make comparisons numbers for Pell recipients are for the entire academic year, while the num-
to enrollment patterns among all undergraduates.However, we are unable to bers for total undergraduate enrollment are for the fall semester. This results
show the comparative information by the income breakdown shown in all of in the percentage for the two-year private and for profit institutions exceeding
the other indicators—low-income,middle-income,and high-income students. 100 percent, meaning that students in these two sectors who receive Pell
Grants are more likely to enroll throughout the entire academic year,which
7Data were calculated for both 1999-2000 and 2000-01 for this indicator in is also reflective of the programs offered at these institutions as well.
order to maintain 1999-2000 as the baseline.
INDICATORS 7 FALL 2005
Undergraduate Enrollment by Institution Type and Control,1999-2000 and 2000-2001
2000-2001 2000-2001 1999-2000 1999-2000
Pell Recipients All Undergraduates Pell Recipients All Undergraduates
Institution Type Number % Number % Number % Number %
Public Four-Year 1,245,363 32% 4,842,261 37% 1,224,269 33% 4,770,724 38%
Public Two-Year 1,422,942 36% 5,697,061 43% 1,367,889 36% 5,339,285 42%
Private Four-Year 575,082 15% 2,154,336 16% 567,062 15% 2,120,403 17%
Private Two-Year 99,195 3% 58,844 1% 95,670 3% 62,341 < 1%
For-Profit 556,851 14% 402,891 3% 508,820 14% 388,478 3%
Total 3,899,433 100% 13,155,393 100% 3,763,710 100% 12,681,231 100%
Note:Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.Source:U.S.Department of Education, 2001 and NCES, 2002.
called, than are captured in the Pell Grant percent- resources of the program to attend college.
ages. This is due to two factors: Over this time period, the actual maximum
Pell Grant rose from $3,125 to $3,300.
n students’ attendance patterns—on the whole,
n The growth in the Pell Grant population and
students attend community colleges on a less
the overall undergraduate population from
than full-time basis, which reduces their
1999–2000 to 2000–01 was similar, 3.6 percent
eligibility for the Pell Grant, and
versus 3.7 percent.
n the price of attending public two-year
n However changes in the sectors were not always
institutions—community colleges tend to have
comparable. While the percentage changes were
lower tuition and fees, meaning that low-income
similar in the four-year institutions for both groups,
students attending these institutions may be less
growth in the private two-year and for-profit sec-
likely to apply for or receive Pell Grant aid.
tors was much more substantial for the Pell Grant
Indeed, NPSAS data show that higher percentages
recipients, with the total undergraduate popula-
of low-income students attend community col-
tion declining in the private two-year sector.
leges compared to higher income students.10
Examining the Changes in Pell Grant
Enrollment Changes by Sector
Recipients from 1999–2000 to 2000–01. from 1999–2000 to 2000–2001
Looking at the two years of data for the shares of
Pell Grant Total Undergraduate
enrollment by Pell Grant recipients, some interest- Recipients Population
ing issues begin to emerge. Though it is too early to Public Four-Year +1.7% +1.5%
call them trends, the following bear watching:
Public Two-Year +4.0% +6.7%
n From 1999–2000 to 2000–01, the number of Pell Private Four-Year +1.4% +1.6%
Grant recipients increased by nearly 136,000.11 Private Two-Year +3.4% -5.6%
Since there were no significant changes to
For-Profit +9.4% +3.7%
the program such as changes in eligibility or
Overall Change +3.6 % +3.7%
calculations of need analysis, this means that
Sources:U.S.Department of Education, 2001, and NCES, 2002.
there were more students who needed the
10Approximately 37 percent of low-income students attend public two-year
institutions, compared to 34 percent and 25 percent of middle and high-income
students, respectively (NCES, 2004b).
11According to the College Board’s Trends in Student Aid (2004c), the number
of Pell Grant recipients had decreased from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 by approxi-
mately 91,000 students.
INDICATORS 8 FALL 2005