The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

    WHAT if you were all set to go to college but were turned away at the door because there was no room? Or you couldn't scrape together the money for the rising cost of tuition?
    That's what happened to an estimated 250,000 prospective students who were locked out of college in 2003-04 because of increased tuition or reductions in admissions and course offerings, according to a report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE), a nonprofit organization that promotes public policies that enhance higher education opportunity. The report, Responding to the Crisis in College Opportunity, offers a series of emergency measures to stem the crisis in college opportunity and ensure that all eligible students are able to enroll in and afford college.
    "Two to three years into the recession, we're now really beginning to see the effects," says Joni Finney, NCPPHE vice president. "Our best guess is that it wasn't a problem until this past year." Contributing factors to the denial of access include the growth in numbers of students seeking a college education, state budget cuts, tuition increases, merit-based grants, and recruitment of out-of-state students.
    A new study projects more graduates and greater diversity of high schools, with the highest growth expected to be Hispanic, according to Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State, Income and Race/Ethnicity, published by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. The report also estimates that the number of low-income ($0-$20,000) graduates will grow from 438,000 in 2002 to 463,000 in 2007.
    "We'll have a boom echo, a little bump when the children of baby boomers enter college age. If you couple that with the first- and second-generation Americans and people who want to go back to college, you have to think about capacity," says Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Offices (NASBO) and a signatory of the NCPPHE report.
    In addition to the states, the federal government also plays a role in denying access to college to low-income students. More than two-thirds of all higher education institutions participate in federal student aid programs; the President's education budget kills off 38 programs. And the federal Pell Grant, which aids the neediest students (80% of recipients have incomes less than $10,000), hasn't kept up with tuition. In the 1980s, it covered more than 90% of tuition, but only 50% by 2000.
    Federal grants are increasingly going to middle-class students and families. Combined, unsubsidized Stafford loans, federal loans to parents, and tax credits--all geared more toward middle-income than low-income students--now constitute 43% of total federal student aid.

Discretionary
    Because of the economic downturn, states have slashed funding to colleges--an area they consider a "discretionary" part of their education budget, and the only one they have much discretion in. "State officials treat it as discretionary because they feel that colleges have another funding source: tuition revenue," says Finney.
    State spending for higher education dropped from 15.6% in 1997 to 12.6% in 2002, according to NASBO. Colleges try to make up the difference by raising tuition.
    "Data from the 1980s to 2000 shows a steady increase in tuition beyond inflation," says Finney. "It's always higher in bad economic times when states cut their budgets. But," she adds, "there are political implications. We might see an end to this when the middle class rebels and when taxpayers and voters have had enough."
    Raising tuition freezes out low-income students or forces them to incur greater debt burden. In 2000-01, for example, nearly 90% of Pell Grant recipients who completed a bachelor's degree graduated with student loan debt. "The burden of loans affects people's choices," says Pattison. "That's a real concern."
    Another issue for access is that states have increased the percentage of merit-based rather than need-based student grants, which takes money and places from low-income students. Though need-based grant programs are still much larger, the rate of growth of merit-based programs, popular among middle-class families, is higher.

Access Challenge
    "Merit-based programs are a real challenge to access," says Finney, "because you're spending money on students who'd go to college anyway."
    In 2002-03, student grants based on financial need rose by only 9.4%, to $4.23 billion, while grants not based on need rose at more than double that rate, by 21.9%, to $1.554 billion, according to a study by the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs. Funding for need-based student aid comes out of general state appropriations, whereas merit-based programs are financed by state lotteries. Probably the best known of the merit-based grants is the HOPE Scholarship program in Georgia.
    Finally, aggressive recruitment of out-of-state students to boost college revenues siphons off places from in-state students. "A lot of institutions are charging out-of-state students more than even instructional costs," says Finney. "They're trying to make money off them even though taxpayers are paying for their residents to go to college."
    "Arizona, for example, is trying to increase the number of out-of-state students, but has the second-highest number of new projected students, 65% over the next decade," says David Longanecker, executive director of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, a 15-state educational collaboration, and a signatory of the NCPPHE report. "Colleges need to ensure their own (resident) students before they become more enamored of students of other states."
    The report urges state governors and legislators to stop the freeze-out of students by making access to higher education the top priority of their higher education budgets. "Every decision made at the state level is a choice not to do something else," says Finney. "You could protect the community colleges which provide access and you could protect student financial aid. The state should set priorities to protect educational opportunity."
    Interestingly, many higher education experts believe that state financial aid to students attending private four-year colleges, rather than hurting, actually helps the public college system. Normally, the aid given to students at a private college is much less than at a public college--and it relieves pressure on the public college system.
    Specific short-term emergency measures for states which must cut higher education budgets in 2004 include: not cutting higher education disproportionately to overall state funding costs; not cutting state appropriations to colleges and universities serving primarily low- to middle-income students; increasing or at least maintaining funding for need-based financial aid, even if it means reallocating resources from colleges and universities; increasing tuition moderately at public research universities to what the state can increase in need-based financial aid; and temporarily freezing tuition at community colleges and public four-year colleges that serve primarily low- to middle-income students.
    "If we don't protect access in community colleges, we won't have access," says Finney. "We need to keep it affordable."
    Says Longanecker, "Community colleges have already been starved for funds. But as an emergency measure, it's important not to see them priced out of whack."

High Priority
    If the states can increase funding for higher education, the report recommends investing new state resources in institutions accommodating enrollment growth; giving funding for enrollment growth a higher priority than funding for inflation adjustments; holding tuition increases to the rate of growth in family income in each state; and investing new resources in state need-based financial aid programs, even if this requires reallocation.
    "Most states tried to hold institutions harmless through increases in tuition, but, in most cases, didn't protect students," says Longanecker. "Institutions will argue they need money, and this is true. But we have to make sure each new dollar goes to protect access, not to protect institutions."
    Other recommendations include protecting the higher education "safety net"--low tuition at open-access institutions, assuring the transfer of qualified students from two- to four-year public colleges and universities, providing a space for every eligible student to enroll in higher education, and avoiding short-term solutions creating structural dependencies not in the state's interest (for example, recruiting high percentages of out-of-state students for more revenue).
    The NCPPHE long-term recommendations are that the states should begin a process to achieve major productivity increases in higher education--maintaining or decreasing the costs of delivering high-quality education; assuring transfer opportunity to four-year colleges for all qualified community-college students; and initiating a process to specify and implement long-term higher-education goals that would increase college access and completion.

Another Blow
    The transfer of qualified students from two-to four-year public colleges has become problematical because of the lack of funding for student spaces, dealing another blow to access. For example, as a result of its capacity problem in four-year colleges, the state of Washington increased its grade point average requirements for transfer. California is waiting to see how many students they'll have funded.
    "California and Washington will have very large increases of students over the next decade. How they handle that is a question," says Longanecker.
    Regarding student transfers from two- to four-year colleges, Finney says, "States could create policies to guarantee eligible students' transfers to four-year colleges. The idea is to use the community college system more effectively."
    California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a joint admission policy for students who are University of California-eligible but do not have a space. They would be directed to community colleges with a guaranteed admission to a four-year program after two years, if they qualify. But, says Finney, transfer for original community-college students may still be a problem.
    In any event, Pattison makes the point that capacity is only one part of access. "The really important part is affordability," he says. "You could have all the capacity in the world, but if you don't have affordability, you don't have access."
    In the end, though, some of the emergency recommendations from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education--particularly those which call for belt-tightening of already financially strapped educational institutions--could be called robbing Peter to pay Paul.
    Says Longanecker, "Paul has to be the most at-risk students, because they can't take care of themselves."
ADDED MATERIAL
    Sandra Gardner is a Contributing Writer for The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education. Condensed from The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 14 (August 23, 2004), 12-14. Published at 210 Route 4 East, Ste. 310, Paramus, NJ 07652; www.HispanicOutlook.com.