Major Cuts in State Funding Threaten College Affordability
Policy Outlook, Vol. 5, Issue 2 - December 2008

 

States are making no progress, and in some cases, are regressing, when it comes to public college affordability.  So says a state-by-state higher education "report card" released in early December by the San Jose and Washington, DC-based National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

In past report cards, issued biennially since 2000 by the policy group, New Jersey scored a poor but passing grade on affordability (D).  This year the Garden State joined virtually all states in flunking, making it one of the states to lose ground in this area.  In earlier analyses, the state did better than most, mainly because of a strong financial commitment to need-based financial aid.  In awarding the failing grade, Center policy analysts focused on the percentage of family income needed to pay tuition, and gave this state-specific illustration:  "poor and working class families must devote 40% of their income, even after aid, to pay for costs at two-year colleges."

Upon issuing the report, Patrick M. Callan, president of the Center, stated his view that states are at a crucial point as they balance budgets and have two options:  "passing the brunt of the financial stress onto students and families," or taking steps to "balance the financial burden among the state, institutions of higher education, students and families."  Callan has been a participant on several ASCU panels in the past.

In other areas the report card surveyed, New Jersey stayed about the same:  preparation of students for college received an "A-"; college participation opportunities among working adults and minorities rated a "C"; completion of degrees received a "C+" (down from a "B" in 2006); and benefits related to educational level of citizens received an "A-".

The story was carried in local newspapers including The Record and in the Atlantic City Press, with comments from ASCU.  ASCU has echoed many of the concerns voiced by the National Center, including the need for improved state investment and institutional productivity, but it often disagrees with some of the Center's problem analysis.

According to Paul Shelly, Callan was mistaken on one point he made, which "simply did not apply to New Jersey."  Callan said college leaders took state budget cuts too lightly.  "In fact, there have been five cuts over the past seven years and presidents and trustees have spoken out against every one of those cuts in the newspapers and in the halls of Trenton.  This year, through our New Jersey College Promise Action Network, we think citizens who see they have a stake in college affordability and opportunity will lend their voices, too."