The Value of a Dollar: A Survey of State Financing and Tuition PoliciesMarcie Foster, CLASP and Lennox McLendon, NCSDAE

Annual Conference of the Commission on Adult Basic Education and The Virginia Association for Adult & Continuing Education (VAACE)

April 11, 2012

2

CLASP and NCSDAE

• The Center for Law and Social Policy develops and advocates for policies that improve the lives of low-income people.

• The National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (NCSDAE) establishes and maintains a nationwide communication network regarding national policy and legislative issues.

3

Perfect Storm of Adult Education Financing

New Demands for Adult Education• New Focus on Alignment with

Workforce/CTE/Postsecondary• Meeting Credential Attainment Goals with

Declining Traditional HS population• Growing immigrant population

Declining or Unstable Resource Availability• Federal/State/Local• New attention on tuition/fee policies• Costs of new GED in 2014

4

Topics Covered in the Survey

Sources of Funding

Federal

State

Local

Tuition

Discretionary Resources

How Funds are Distributed

State Legislature State Agency

State Agency Programs/

Institutions

Costs to Students

State Tuition Policies

Typical Tuition/Fee

Levels

GED Testing Fees

Typical Fees

State Policy on Charging Fees

Anticipated Changes in

2014

5

Methodology

• This survey was administered in February 2012 through an online survey instrument.

• Distributed to State Directors of Adult Education in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

• In March 2012, CLASP followed up with respondents to clarify answers and, in some cases, to obtain detailed information on a particular tuition policy or financing structure.

6

Survey Limitations

• 43 states responded to the survey.

• The breadth and depth of local funding for adult education was not able to be captured, due to lack of adequate reporting of these types of funds.

• States vary widely in terms of governance, state law, and policy; nearly impossible to uniformly compare.

• Not a causal analysis.

7

Survey StatesLabor/WorkforceCommunity Colleges/PostsecondaryK-12/Education

8

Survey States

• Size* Most Students: California (392,918 students), New York (122,833), and

North Carolina (115,312) Fewest Students: North Dakota (1,581), Vermont (1,590), and South

Dakota (2,423)

• ESL Students* Highest Proportion: Nevada (77 percent), California (66 percent), and

Colorado (61 percent) Lowest Proportion: Mississippi (1 percent), Montana (6 percent), and

Louisiana (6 percent)

*These figures are from 2010 National Reporting System Data and may not reflect the total number of adult education students in the state.

Main Sources of Funding for Adult Education

Federal45%

State45%

Local9%

Tuition1%

• Only requirement is federal 25% matching requirement using nonfederal funds.

• Availability of local data on funding varies as does the availability of local funding. (25 states reported no local funding.)

• Small revenue from tuition reflects the few number of states that charge tuition for courses.

• $1.20 in nonfederal funds for every $1 of federal funding.

9

10

Local Funding for Adult Education Varies Widely

• 17 states reported local funding contributions for adult education services. These states ranged from reporting that 44 percent to 4 percent of their funding comes from local sources.

NevadaGeorgia

Rhode IslandTennessee

IndianaOhio

PennsylvaniaVirginia

MassachussettsNew Hampshire

NebraskaMaryland

KansasMontanaColorado

WisconsinConnecticut

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 504

71010

11151515

2023

2526

2836

4043

44

11

Percentage of State Contribution of Total Adult Education Funding

No state funding Contribute 25 percent or less

Contribute 26 - 50 percent

Contribute 51 -75 percent

Contribute 76 percent and over

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

3

9

1312

5

12

How States Distribute Federal Funds to Local Providers – 34+ Distinct Formulas

• 27 states use a formula that takes into account a combination of enrollments, past performance, and eligible population.

• 7 states use a formula that takes into account only one of the following: enrollments, past performance, or eligible population.

• Common performance indicators: Educational functioning level gains, Number of GED’s/Adult High School Diplomas awarded, and Number of contact hours.

• NRS outcomes are a significant driver.

13

How States Distribute State Funding to Local Providers

• 22 states distribute all state funding in the same way as federal funds; 18 do not.

• Respondents commonly reported that state funds are distributed based on past performance, but sometimes given different “weights” than the federal funds.

• Other states in this category use the funds in completely different ways:

providing funds to supplement what federal funds do not cover, providing a portion of services solely on a specific population,

such as young adults.

14

Equity Considerations in Performance Funding

• At least one state awarded double performance points for programs that helped students at the lowest basic skill levels move to a higher educational functioning level.

• Many states report using population data as a factor in the distribution of funds. This can be key to ensuring that all counties in the state have equitable access to funding. These states then use a competitive grant process to

distribute funds based on the state’s priorities, including the use of performance funding.

15

Access to Special Discretionary Resources

Federal State Local WIA Title II – State

Leadership Funding (8) WIA Title II – Grants to

Local Providers (3) WIA Incentive Funds (4) WIA Title I Discretionary

Funds (2) Wagner-Peyser (1)

State Adult Education Funding (2)

Special Funds from the State Legislature (4)

Community Colleges (1)

Foundation and Business (1)

•19 states indicated they used special discretionary resources to incent local innovation, such as dual enrollment in postsecondary coursework, team teaching, contextualization, workplace literacy, or others.

•States, institutions, and programs with existing partnerships are better positioned to apply for funding for competitive federal grants (e.g. TAACCCT, WIF)

16

State Tuition Policies

• Programs that receive federal WIA Title II funds are allowed to charge tuition/fees to students provided that they are “necessary and reasonable and do not impose a barrier to the participation of disadvantages persons that the program was designed to serve.” However, states can further define tuition and fee policies.

• In the survey, tuition/fees were defined as costs beyond those for materials, which are often charged to students to cover the expenses related to course materials or textbooks.

17

State Tuition and Fee PoliciesStates Tuition and/or Fee Policy

2Require local programs to charge fees and set the tuition/fee level

(HI, WA)

21Allow programs to charge tuition/fees

(AZ, CA, CO, IL*, IN, IA, KS, MD*,MI, MN, MO, NE, NV, NH*, OK, RI, SC, TX*, UT, VA, WY)

20Prohibit local programs from charging tuition/fees

(AL, AR, CT, DE, GA, ID, KY, LA, MA, MS, MT, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SD, TN, VT, WI)

*State only allows tuition to be charged to students with 9 th grade level skills or above.

18

State Tuition and Fee Policies

• Among states in which local programs determined funds, many states generally still played a significant role.

Must be approved by the state Maximum tuition determined by state statute

• Did not collect data on the “average” tuition/fees charged by local programs in the state that allowed this practice.

• Tuition levels low even if required by the state: $10 per student per course $25 per student/quarter (can be waived by institutions in the case of

financial hardship)

• Does not include Florida, which has new statewide tuition policies that differ based on in-state and out-of-state residency.

19

A Balancing Act: Charging Tuition/Fees

Charging students a modest tuition level helps them feel more engaged in their education.

Can lead to shift to managed enrollment, which leads to better persistence and improved student attendance.

Tuition can represent a modest revenue stream for programs.

Too high tuition or lack of financial waivers can lead to drops in enrollment, despite increased demand.

High tuition/fees can exhaust a student’s savings (if any) that they need for postsecondary education or training.

Easier to monitor with managed enrollment systems.

Charging fees without additional student supports may not change persistence, engagement that much.

Cost of collection and enforcement could be higher than revenue collected.

Pro

Con

20

State GED Testing Fees

• New GED is coming in 2014, with implications for testing fees and administrative policies. Computer-based; More rigorous; Two cut scores indicate two different levels

of proficiency; Flat fee per content area test; and Re-testing fees for non-passers.

• Little information on the financial burden this will cause students, but widespread concern from practitioners and states.

21

State GED Testing Fees

States GED® Testing Fees

27Charge students a flat, uniform testing fee

(AL, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MA, MS, MT, NV, NH, NC, OH, RI, SC, SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI)

13Allow local programs to determine the testing fee

(AZ, CA, CO, LA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OK, PA, TN, TX, WY)

3Do not charge a testing fee

(AR, MO, NY)

22

Distribution of GED Testing Fees in States with a Flat Fee

Connecticut

Ohio

Alabama

Montana

Virginia

Nevada

New Hampshire

Mississippi

Washington

South Carolina

Utah

Indiana

Idaho

Wisconsin

$- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

$13 $25

$40 $45

$50 $50

$55 $55

$58 $60 $60

$65 $65

$75 $75 $75 $75 $75

$80 $85 $85

$95 $95 $95

$100 $100

$120 $128

23

Locally-Determined GED Testing Fees Vary, Still Relatively Low

Average Median Cost of GED® to Students

$71 $75 Cost in States that Charge a Flat Fee

$59 (Low)

 

$55 (Low)

 

Low-End of the Cost Range in States that Allow local programs to determine the cost for students

$112 (High)

$100 (High)

High-End of the Cost Range in States that Allow local programs to determine the cost for students

24

New GED in 2014 Will Mean Higher Costs for Most Students

• Among states that charge a flat fee (27), only 2 charge at least $120, and one is a CBT pilot state.

• Among states that allow programs to locally determine GED testing fees (13), only 5 states reported the maximum fee that some of their local programs charge can be above $120.

For the vast majority of students, a GED testing fee of $120 for the full battery of tests will represent a stark cost increase.

25

Changes to State Policy to Keep the GED Affordable to Students

• Allocating more funding at the agency level to help offset the cost of the test to students,

• Pursuing changes in state law that prohibit funds being used to subsidize the test, or

• Working with other state systems, such as workforce development or social services, to identify new resources for GED test-takers.

• 9 states are seeking an alternative assessment.

Anticipate State Policy Changes to Help Keep the GED Affordable for Students (21 States)

• Cannot afford to do this and continue to offer instructional services in light of declining resources.

• Difficult to do with a new for-profit structure.• Corporations/Employers may play a role.

Do Not Anticipate State Policy Changes to Help Keep the GED Affordable for Students (22 States)

26

Q &A

• Full report will be released in April/May 2012!

Marcie Foster

Center for Law and Social Policy (www.clasp.org)

Lennox McLendon

National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (www.ncsdae.org)