STUDENTS from low-income families are much less likely to attend college compared to students from higher-income backgrounds. This has become one of the central problems of higher education in the country. The controversy exits over how to best solve the problem. One side says the key is to increase funding for student aid, while the other group maintains that spending more money on preparation in elementary and secondary schools will better prepare poor students for college. Both sides are correct, and the solution can only occur from a combination of both tactics.
The disparity between low-income families and high-income families in sending their children to college is disturbing. According to the latest statistics, 85 percent of high school graduates from families earning over $75,000 in income went to college compared to only 53 percent of high school graduates from families earning less than $25,000("Rift Grows Over What Keeps Low-Income Students Out of College," Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 25).
The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which helps advise Congress on student-aid issues, is in favor of more money for the Pell Grant program. This program provides federal aid for needy students, and according to the organization, needs much more funding in order to prevent a crisis in higher education in the future. The other side is led by Arthur M. Hauptman, an independent policy consultant, who stresses that money should be spent in elementary, middle and high schools rather than on student aid.
The dispute is so bitter because the Bush administration and Congress are preparing for the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which governs the $50 billion student-aid programs in this country. Many such as the advisory commission and college lobbyists worry that Hauptman's views will be embraced by Bush and the Republicans in Congress, as a reason not to support increases in funding for student-aid programs.
This is a legitimate concern, and the Republicans would love to use any excuse not to spend more money on higher education. Unfortunately, one doubts whether these same Republicans would back Hauptman's idea to spend more money on schooling before college. This is the danger of Hauptman's view, and hopefully he has not simply adopted his theory on education to get publicity from the press and the Republican administration. But this would be a disgusting thing to do, so giving Hauptman the benefit of the doubt, his ideas should be analyzed, and in doing so, he is right in many cases.
Hauptman says that Pell Grants are not the answer because they often give financial aid to students who are not prepared to go to college, which can lead to these students dropping out of school. Students would be most helped if they were prepared to go to college to start with and he cites programs such as GEAR UP and TRIO, which are early-intervention programs to help needy students. He also favors raising academic standards and making sure that students have the skills and desire to attend college.
Hauptman absolutely is correct in accessing that one of the ways to help students from lower-income homes is to make sure that they are getting a good education before they get to college. While the University does not have a problem in student retention, many other schools do, and a student going to school for a year and then dropping out certainly does not help the student at all. Despite the education he apparently received in the first year of schooling, he is left with no degree, and a student loan which he has to pay back. But improving public schools to prepare students for college is only part of the solution.
The advisory committee points out that even though Pell Grants were raised to $4,000 from $2,300 this fall, the increase does not make up for the loss of buying power of the grants as tuition costs exploded throughout the 1980s and early 90s, and little money was put in by Republican administrations. According to a report the group submitted to Congress called "Access Denied" need-based student aid programs most be revitalized to help out a predicted 15- year surge of college-age students.
The advisory committee also is correct. While improving public elementary and secondary schools is nice, students still must face the ridiculous cost of college, which is difficult for most middle-class families to pay for, never mind lower-income families.
The dispute between the two opposing camps in the student-aid battle is doing more harm than good. If both sides would admit the truth, which is that the other side has valid points, the struggle to provide lower-income families with college educations for their children would be easier. The harsh reality is that even during this time of recession, more money is needed for student aid and for public elementary, middle and secondary schools.
(Harris Freier's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at hfreier@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
