Public Policy and Higher Education

Reframing Strategies for Preparation, Access, and College Success

Edward P. St. John, Nathan J. Daun-Barnett, Karen M. Moronski-Chapman, Nathan Daun-Barnett

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781317223054
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Public Policy and Higher Education provides readers with new ways to analyze complex state policies and offers the tools to examine how policies affect students' access and success in college. Rather than arguing for a single approach, the authors examine how policymakers and higher education administrators can work to inform and influence change within systems of higher education using research-based evidence along with consideration of political and historical values and beliefs. Raising new questions and examining recent developments, this updated edition is an invaluable resource for graduate students, administrators, policymakers, and researchers who seek to learn more about the crucial contexts underlying policy decisions and college access.

Special Features:

• Case Studies—allow readers to examine strategies used by different types of colleges to improve access and retention.
• Reflective Exercises—encourage readers to discuss state and campus context for policy decisions and to think about the strategies used in a state or institution.
• Approachable Explanations—unpack complex public policies and financial strategies for readers who seek understanding of public policy in higher education.
• Research-Based Recommendations—explore how policymakers, higher education administrators, and faculty can work together to improve quality, diversity, and financial stewardship.
  
• New epilogues and a revised Part III—reexamine themes and encourage critical thinking about inequality and policy change

1

Introduction

Over the past three decades, radical changes have occurred in public policies that alter the ways in which colleges are financed and students pay for college from a long, progressive tradition in U.S. higher education to a more neoliberal focus on accountability and individual responsibility. A stratified market system of higher education has evolved in most states. The primary sorting criteria in this system are students’ abilities and achievements defined by where they attended high school. States have adjusted their educational and school finance strategies by raising the standards for high school graduation, but these policies have not equalized opportunities to prepare for college.

The new high school graduation policies were advocated by reformers such as the National Governors Association (Conklin & Curran, 2005), the Gates Foundation (Hoffman, Vargas, Venezia, & Miller, 2007), and various other national groups (Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). The new high school polices have been accompanied by market approaches in urban schools (i.e., charters, vouchers, and so forth) that create systems where students make choices of career fields and possible college majors as early as middle school (St. John, Bigelow, Lijana, & Mass Masse, 2015).

The market policies in higher education, institutionalized in the 1970s with federal need-based, portable grants, were developed based on arguments that free markets improve quality, increase innovation, and reduce costs (e.g., M. Friedman, 1962; Newman, 1971). We suggest in this text that the combination of market approaches and educational accountability schemes implemented by many states, often in disjointed and contradictory ways, undermine states’ achievement of these goals.

While the federal government sets the directions for educational change through financial incentives, states maintain legal authority for public systems and are responsible for establishing policy frameworks—education and finance policies—that guide development of education systems and expand educational opportunities for their citizens. This disjunction between federal policy and state strategies is one of many problems facing educational reform in the 21st century. State policy frameworks are developed within belief and value systems about education and government held by politicians, analysts, and citizens. Even when public officials think through how various K–12 and higher education policies interrelate, failure to adhere to these frameworks in annual budgeting can undermine their intent, especially as economic conditions and political ideologies change.

Many economists have studied market forces in higher education, but the shift in underlying policy frameworks has gone largely unstudied in economics or higher education. There have been strong rational arguments for market models of public finance in higher education since the middle 1960s (e.g., T. L. Freidman, 1962; Hansen & Weisbrod, 1969; Hearn & Andersen, 1995; Hossler, Lund, Ramin-Gyurnek, Westfall, & Irish, 1997). However, new ways of thinking have developed within states as they have adapted to new political ideologies and financial incentives, what we refer to as state policy frameworks, which have not been studied as such. Unfortunately, these frameworks are often disjointed and contain contradictory requirements, making it difficult for educators and students to achieve their aims. Policy frameworks are often aligned with political ideologies and beliefs that change over time, but sometimes a state can adhere to an old framework because of tradition long after it has lost functionality. Regardless of the type of framework states use, the interface between K–12 and higher education systems too often is not seamless, and creates barriers for students and their families due to financial and structural inequalities perpetuated within educational systems (St. John, Hu, & Fisher, 2011; St. John & Musoba, 2010). Yet it is possible to develop comprehensive and cohesive policy frameworks in states that expand opportunities for their citizens to find educational pathways that work.

Although individual policies are frequently studied and evaluated, the logic of frameworks that link policies within states is seldom reviewed, evaluated, revised, or redefined. Typically, new laws, standards, and funding schemes emerge in response to new federal initiatives with little collective discourse within states—or even at the federal level—about the implications for a state’s K–16 system, or the cohesiveness of pathways through educational systems. The federal Race to the Top competition provides a useful illustration of the challenges we face. In 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as a comprehensive strategy to address the recessionary challenges facing the United States. Part of this initiative was the creation of a $4.35 billion grant fund to incentivize states to adopt a set of neoliberal policy priorities, including college and career readiness standards, expanded opportunities for school choice, data-informed decision making, and teacher accountability (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The winners were the states that most successfully adopted the slate of policy preferences articulated by the Department of Education. There was no expectation that states develop an integrated statewide strategy tailored to the unique political climate of the state or the unique features of the respective education systems. Rather, states were evaluated on the degree to which they met the federal priorities; hundreds of millions of dollars were awarded to 12 states over the first two phases of the competition.

Further, the economic and social contexts within states are subject to frequent and sudden changes. For example, through most of the early 20th century, California’s policy framework for high school preparation and college opportunity was unequaled (e.g., Kerr, 1963), but it has fallen from this lofty position in recent decades. In the current context of federal policy and global competition in the labor market, it is important for state and campus leaders to consider forces at work when planning and leading efforts to expand opportunity, the prevailing educational goal in nearly every state across the country.

Federal and State Policy Frameworks

Whereas federal market strategies have overtly emphasized innovation, efficiency, and quality in recent decades, implementation of federal policies has fallen short of intent, since tax constraints and political attitudes shift before new policies are fully implemented. There is also great variability in the ways market-oriented policies have been implemented across and within state systems of higher education and local high school systems. Reform strategies originated by one state (e.g., Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship or Indiana’s 21st Century Scholars) are adapted by other states, just as innovations by colleges (e.g., learning communities) are adapted by other campuses. A body of research has examined the patterns of diffusion of educational policy innovations across states and identified a number of factors related to adoption (Doyle, 2006; McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006), but very little of this work examines whether, or the extent to which, states adapt these strategies to the existing state context. Constraints on tax revenue and diversity in state frameworks (i.e., public attitudes and policy traditions) make it necessary to alter policies as models are adapted and altered through implementation. The variations in state markets should be of concern to educators, policymakers, and citizens within states because both the educational opportunities for citizens and constraints on strategy adoption by institutions are inexorably linked to and altered by state contexts.¹ Our core argument is that strategies for improving college access and reducing inequality must be adapted to state policy contexts because of the following:

• The shift from human capital to market theories as the underlying framework of education policy changes education in fundamental ways.
• High school graduation standards shape both patterns of high school dropout and the extent of college preparation but not necessarily the quality of preparation.
• State grant programs—merit- and need-based aid—influence student expectations about college choices during high school as well as the ability of low- and middle-income families to pay for different types of colleges within their states.
• Colleges craft financial aid packages to promote academic success within the constraints of federal and state student aid.
• Institutional strategies for improving academic success during college must be aligned with the preparation of students.

From Human Capital Theory to Market Models

During the last half of the 20th century, education policy was typically taught within a human capital framework. Human capital theory argued that both governments and individuals made decisions about education based on expected economic and human (individual and social) returns (Becker, 1964). The economic returns from education spending were seldom evaluated, but studies that did so raised doubts about prevailing policy (e.g., Hansen & Weisbrod, 1967). The federal government published reports recommending that states use manpower needs to guide decisions about which types of colleges and programs to build and support (Halstead, 1974). During the same period, international studies of higher education systems typically used human capital frameworks (e.g., Kerr, 1978). However, by the early 1970s market logic had begun to have a substantial influence on education policy.

The Newman Commission (1971), a study group for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), recommended portable grants as a means of equalizing opportunity and stimulating innovation, and soon a panel of economists made similar recommendations (Committee on Economic Development, 1973). Research by the National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education (1973) confirmed that student aid had a more substantial influence on enrollment than direct institutional funding. These early studies influenced the general acceptance of market approaches to higher education funding at the federal level, a strategy that was rationalized in arguments about equal opportunity (Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976). The Pell grant program, introduced as Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs) in 1972, adapted the human capital arguments to claim that portable, need-based aid could equalize educational access, and it is now the largest federally sponsored market-based policy for postsecondary opportunity.²

The grant-based system of need-based aid lasted for only a short period. In higher education, research showing that individuals benefit economically from education (e.g., Leslie & Brinkman, 1988) has been used to argue for loans rather than grants as the primary means of providing student aid (Bennett, 1986, 1987). Arguments for educational vouchers in K–12 education had been made in the 1960s (M. Freidman, 1962), but it took several decades for these arguments to take hold. Both public and private vouchers were tried in the 1990s, but research on their impact was ambiguous, as was the research on charter schools (e.g., Witte, 2000). In K–12 education, market adaption occurred through development of charter schools to compete with public systems, but vouchers never gained sufficient evidence-informed political support. Parents who can afford to do so vote with their feet and choose to live in communities with high-performing schools. These patterns accelerated in the second half of the 20th century, particularly in response to federal and state desegregation efforts.

When economists assess and evaluate market policies in higher education, they frequently assume that equal opportunity exists in K–12 education (Lleras, 2004); if this assumption were not made, it would be extremely difficult for them to estimate the impact of market-based reforms in college aid, even when randomized experiments were used. Yet, economists have also uncovered some of the problems with the application of market theory in education. Early econometric studies of the impact of Pell grants found that constraints on academic preparation in high school limited college choices for new enrollees in community colleges and proprietary schools (Manksi & Wise, 1983). Analyses of the impact of costs, even causal analyses, are biased in ways that cannot easily be corrected without considering differentials in prior preparation. Instead of considering market barriers, much of the education research community blames schools and students for failures.

There have been only a few actual experiments studying vouchers and other market mechanisms. Findings indicate that these models have not reduced inequalities in access to quality education. Research using experiments with random assignment has shown repeatedly that state and local attempts to equalize educational opportunities have mostly failed: school quality and access to the best schools remain unequal, even when there are modest gains in parents’ perceived satisfaction (Metcalf & Paul, 2006; Witte, 1998, 2000). Thus, the association between state policies and inequality in education markets merits closer study, not because we should do away with markets, but rather so we can find better ways to reduce inequalities given the prevalence of market mechanisms in education.

Markets are not only part of the problem with inequality, they can also be part of the solution if the appropriate mechanisms—and necessary funding—are put into place to promote greater fairness.

States infrequently consider the role of their market-oriented policies in contributing to or undermining equal opportunity in education; indeed, the linkages between market forces and fairness are poorly understood in state governments. For nearly a century, K–12 education was compulsory and appropriately considered a basic right; higher education was generally available and heavily subsidized by the public. The general subsidies to public universities in the first half of the 20th century mostly benefited middle- and upper-income families, who had greater access (Hansen & Weisbord, 1969). Contemporary market models evolved as a result of shifts in political ideologies and funding constraints without strong empirical evidence to support new policies and without effective evaluation strategies to assess the impact of the policies. Yet, there was brief period of relative equality across racial/ethnic groups in the opportunity to enroll in college, as historic inequalities in college access were largely remedied by federal court decisions calling for desegregation, and the implementation of Pell grants in the 1970s (St. John, 2003).³ Despite that brief period of success in terms of access, there has never been equality across racial/ethnic groups in rates of degree attainment.

By the late 1980s, the federal government had shifted its focus from equalizing opportunity in preparation and college opportunity to emphasizing improvement in educational outcomes and equal treatment for all students (Finn, 1990a), a strategy that continues. During the same period, the federal government shifted aid strategies from emphasizing need-based grants to relying primarily on loans (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2004). Although the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) included new federal spending on education, most of it was short-term stimulus funding, rather than a long-term reinvestment, used to reward states that adopted the range of federal policy priorities for education. Subsequent budget deals have gutted much of the new investment in education that had been included in the stimulus. Thus, it is up to the states to figure out how to equalize e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Text Boxes
• Series Editor Introduction
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• Part I The National Policy Discourse
• Part II Case Studies
• Part III Policy Studies in Higher Education
• Notes
• References
• Index