Low-income students: Back on the federal agenda

EYE ON WASHINGTON A look at what's happening with

Almost four decades ago, the federal government launched a host of new programs to promote access to higher education for low-income families. They worked. The percentage of low-income high school graduates who attend college has increased from 46 percent in 1970 to 57 percent today.

But the percentage of students from upper-income families who go to college also rose. So while access has improved overall, lowincome students have gained little ground relative to their more financially comfortable peers. In fact, the difference in college participation rates between students from these different income groups has decreased by only 4 percentage points, from 33 percent a generation ago to 29 percent today.

As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Higher Education Act next year, there are clear signals that college participation among low-income students is once again moving to center stage.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to why low-income students enroll in higher education or what can be done to increase their participation. In place of agreement, there are three hypotheses about students from low-income families:

They lack information about the benefits of higher education, what it takes to enroll, and how to afford it.

They do not have the academic preparation to enroll and succeed.

They lack the financial resources to enroll and complete degrees.

Let's consider the evidence:

Information. High school students face a dizzying array of options about their future, from military service to work to postsecondary education and training. They need good information about the costs and benefits of these choices to make an informed decision. Surveys have repeatedly demonstrated that the public overestimates the price of a college education and underestimates the amount of financial aid that is available. The estimates made by low-income families are the furthest from the mark.

Generations of high school students made post-high school plans with the help of guidance counselors. However, in recent years the number of counselors has shrunk just as secondary school enrollments have soared. At the same time, the role counselors play has changed from advising students about academic and occupational opportunities to dealing with the wide range of social problems: substance abuse, divorce, eating disorders, depression, and suicide. Time spent on these pressing problems means that there is inevitably less time for college counseling.

Information about the benefits of college and the availability of student aid needs to be given to students early enough to make a difference in their planning. Getting the information too late means that students may set their sights too low, and this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in 1998, the National Longitudinal Study asked 13,000 eighth graders to identify their educational goals. Just 19 percent of those who picked 11 graduate from high school" as their goal enrolled in college, compared with 73 percent of students who said they wanted to get a four-year college degree.

Information about the availability of student aid and how to get it seems particularly opaque, especially for low-income families. A 1998 study of factors related to college enrollment done for the Department of Education found that 25 percent of the lowincome parents whose children were academically qualified said they had not been able to get much information about financial aid.

Academic Preparation. It's no secret that some secondary schools provide more extensive educational opportunities than others. These differences mean that some students are better prepared for college than others. The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently analyzed the high school courses taken by recent graduates. It found that 40 percent of lowincome students took a "core" (or basic) curriculum, compared with 25 percent of students from highincome families. Conversely, 27 percent of high-income students took a "rigorous" high school curriculum, compared with just 15 percent of low-income students.

But NCES looked at more than coursework. After combining class rank, grade point average, and SAT or ACT test scores, the agency concluded that only 9 percent of those in the lowest income group were "highly qualified" to attend a four-year college, compared with 30 percent in the highest income group. By contrast, 47 percent of low-income students were "minimally qualified," versus just 16 percent of the high-income group.

Financial Resources. Regardless of what they know about college or their academic preparation for it, students from low- and moderateincome families often face huge financial barriers. The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA), a congressionally mandated panel of experts that advises Congress, recently concluded that in 2002 alone, more than 400,000 academically qualified high school students will not attend a four-year college because they cannot afford it. Almost half of these students will not go to college at all.

According to the ACSFA report, low-income, highly qualified students are equally likely to enroll in a four-year college as highincome, marginally qualified students. The reason for this disparity is "unmet need"- the money a student must still find for college expenses after receiving student aid. While many students have some unmet need, the levels facing low-income students are particularly high. For example, last year low-income students at public four-year institutions faced an average unmet need of $3,800 per year. For high-income students, by contrast, the gap was just $400.

AC SFA concluded that unmet need forces some students to enroll at a different school-such as a two-year school-or attend on a part-time rather than full-time basis. Others work longer hours or borrow more money than they should. Sadly, many students simply abandon postsecondary education altogether. The loss to the students, and the nation, is incalculable.

What this Means for Policy

All of these factors-information, preparation, and financial resources-conspire to limit the college participation of lowincome students. While different analysts will assign different weights to them, there is universal agreement that all are problems.

However, unmet need is particularly cruel because it demolishes the plans of academically qualified students who have done exactly what they were expected to do: stay in school, get good grades, survive the SAT, analyze options, and get student aid. Even after they do these things, many students find themselves unable to enroll because they cannot afford it.

Fixing the unmet need problem requires money, and lots of it. And, because the federal budget deficit has returned, it will be more difficult to increase federal spending for worthwhile purposes in the future than it has been in recent years, when federal budget surpluses were commonplace.

Increasing information about the importance of postsecondary education is a straightforward and more affordable proposition. The federal government should launch a national advertising campaign that encourages students to stay in school and take rigorous courses. Imagine the impact on college participation if the federal government undertook a sophisticated campaign to encourage students to enroll in college-much like the Army's "Be All You Can Be" and the Marines' "A Few Good Men" initiatives.

Improving academic preparation is more complicated, but significant efforts to boost academic achievement are underway.

Indeed, if the effort to improve elementary and secondary schools-spearheaded by President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" campaign-works, the number of academically qualified students ready for college will increase in the coming years. At the same time, the continued expansion of early intervention programs like TRIO and GEAR UP will further boost academic preparation. Ironically, taking steps to make more information available and strengthen academic preparation without addressing unmet need may simply increase the pool of students fully prepared to enroll in college and result in even more students chasing inadequate amounts of student aid.

In short, the problem is easily identified but the easy solution is expensive. But more systematic approaches are also costly and could have unanticipated consequences. The good news is simply that this issue is high on the agenda. For most of the last 15 years, the challenges facing lowincome students who want to go to college have not been the central consideration for policy makers. With reauthorization once again looming on the horizon, access to higher education for low-income students is at the center of the federal policy agenda. And that's a welcome sign.

TERRY HARTLE is Senior Vice President at the American Council on Education.

Copyright American Council on Education Fall 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved