Quick fixes through technology are not likely, either. Dr. Farley at Washburn noted some perceived savings are often expenses. “Technology in administration can lower cost, but in the learning environment, technology can be more costly. Some thought Internet courses could trim instructional cost, but the technology and small class sizes needed to be effective often add cost.”
Dr. Sallee at William Jewell College also cautioned against “one-size fits-all” solutions, noting small colleges, community colleges and universities provide such different services.
Missouri and Kansas
The Cost of Education Challenges Students and Universities Alike | KU students like so many around the region incur debt that may someday soon be overwhelming to manage.
State governments were seen as a key issue. Most of the educators called for more support, but a more fundamental changes were often suggested as well.
Viewing higher education as an economic development investment, not just a cost, was a frequent theme. “It is not uncommon for a region to invest in new business development,” Dr. Slepitza said. “This represents an investment in its greatest asset, its people, to stimulate business development.” He suggested a state-funded loan program that would be forgiven in increments for each year the student remained employed in the region following graduation. The loans would favor regionally needed career areas.
Dr. Hubbard recommended a “British model” that involves loans repaid as taxes after graduation, and establishment of tax-supported family accounts. “There are various ways to incentivize higher education,” he said. “We need to look for creative solutions. Why not make saving for education tax deductible?”
Some suggestions focused on specific state programs. “Much needed assistance could be given to middle-income families struggling to pay for higher education if state government increased need-based funding,” MCC’s Dr. Snyder said. “It would also help if state government supported programs such as MOHELA (Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority), which increases opportunities for students from middle income families.”
Kansas might benefit from an increase of the Comprehensive Grant to high school graduates. “In Kansas, it actually costs the state less to educate a student who attends a private college or university because the only investment is the Comprehensive Grant,” Dr. Robinson said. “The student and/or the private institution must generate the balance of the cost of educating the student.”
The representatives at Johnson County Community College suggested current savings programs should be better communicated to Kansas companies and their employees, and federal support for Title VI funding for higher education. “Tax incentives for higher education have a payback effect in a better-educated citizenry and a workforce able to earn more and then contribute more to the tax base in the state and nationally.”
Dr. Burke cited the need for better promotion of existing programs, noting that affordable community colleges, financial aid, part-time employments and efficient transfer programs to four-year schools make higher education accessible. “I know I seem to be going against the trend, but if a student really wants to pursue higher edu- cation, finances should not be an obstacle.”
Both Dr. Steele and Dr. Byers-Pevitts said the funding issue is most serious for low- and middle-income families, including those already challenged by weak local education and dealing with issues more complex than tuition costs. Rev. Curran suggested raising limits on the Charles Gallagher grant program.
One of the most fundamental suggestions called for a consolidation of state financial aid programs. “Dual credit courses that carry both high school and college credit are often overlooked as a cost-savings measure,” Dr. Bailey said. “If I could direct state government toward any single program that would help middle-income families, this would be it.”
Federal Focus
Pell Grant changes were the most frequent suggestion for federal improvement. Rev. Curran noted that Pell Grant levels have not changed substantially in more than a decade. “As a country we need to recognize the public good of a college education and be willing to invest accordingly.”
Dr. Farley also said commitment for the G.I. Bill and Pell Grants has slipped. “Like the GI Bill, the Pell Grant has helped millions attain a college education. Unfortunately the Pell Grant has not kept pace. The value of a full Pell Grant to a student today is only about forty per-cent of what it was when implemented.”
Several said that federal aid in the form of loans is a mixed blessing, especially in times of rising interest rates. “Clearly the grant programs are effective, so increasing those could broaden access,” Dr. Sallee added. “However, loan programs have also been very effective, but the interest rates need to be low in order for students to avoid long-term negative effects on wealth accumulation. If interest rates rise, as they have recently, borrowing begins to have a very negative effect on students.”
Dr. Bailey and Dr. Slepitza suggested application of loan forgiveness to federal programs. “We need more financial incentives, perhaps through loan forgiveness programs, for students who go into math, science, engineering, and education,” Dr. Bailey said.
Dr. Hubbard noted that some complaints are questionable, however. “Federal money is available but it’s all in loans, which can be a problem,” he said. “But I’m not totally sympathetic with spending $20,000 on education that offers huge return, then $20,000 on a car.”
(...continued)