Responses

Amy Discussion

This week’s case study readings gave us insight into the higher education finance policies of both California and Minnesota. Examining these policies side by side was very interesting as both are different, but each state has found success in its own model. However, as we explored the data provided by the text, it is clear that there are challenges in both of these models, as well. In summation, California enacted a low cost, high grant aid formula while Minnesota opted into a high cost, high grant aid model (Daun-Barnett et al., 2018).

From an initial glance, it may seem that the California system would be more beneficial to students and access. However, we learned about political factors that have caused California to be able to maintain low prices and a high grant aid. Minnesota found a bit more success with their model, as they were able to maintain the level of grant funding that was envisioned to make the funding model a success. In California Proposition 13 and Proposition 4 played a major role in how the model of public higher education evolved. These propositions placed heavy restrictions on how the government could use taxes which made it difficult to sustain high grant aid, and led to those costs being covered by students and families (Daun-Barnett et al., 2018). Meanwhile, in Minnesota, they have been able to sustain their funding model by continuing with a high level of aid over the first 30 years of the model. However, data shows that this model may not be sustainable for much longer and that the state may be examining performance based funding (Daun-Barnett et al., 2018).

While I do believe both of these systems have created access to education for students within the state, it is clear from the data that there has not been a significant impact on completion and success. The graduation rates, from both states, that we explored in the textbook showed that there was some growth in access, but persistence and completion had no stable trajectory, one way or the other. This data shows that while funding is crucial for access, it is not all that is necessary to improve completion rates (Public Agenda, 2016).

 

Daun-Barnett N., Moronski-Chapman, K.M., & St. John, E.P. (2018). Public policy and higher education (2nd ed). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Public Agenda. (2016, August 28). What’s free college got to do with completion? Retrieved from: https://www.publicagenda.org/reports/whats-free-college-got-to-do-with-completion/

Christian Discussion:

In 2018 the state of California had 2.3 million undocumented immigrants living in the state (CMS 2020). A substantial portion of these immigrants came to the United States with dreams of prosperity through education. California is a state taking steps toward assisting these individuals contribute to society. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM ACT) is a higher education finance policy utilized in California that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain financial aid for in-state, public universities. California lawmakers soon also introduced legislation that allowed undocumented immigrants to qualify for private scholarships and institutional aid from schools within the state’s community college system (////). However, undocumented students remain ineligible for aid in the form of state grants, making a college degree out of reach for a lot of immigrant families. Another limitation of California’s efforts to better serve undocumented students is the lack of a path to citizenship. Students that do graduate may be unable to find a suitable employment without citizenship (////).

A finance policy enacted in Minnesota is performance-based funding. The state re-allocated higher education funding in 2011 with the purpose of making institutions earn the government funding via an increase in diversity measures, along with improved graduation rates (////). Results have dictated that performance-based funding has yet to have a large impact on how an institution operates. Despite the good intentions of improved diversity, the colleges that serve higher-income families were the schools that perform better, thus earning funding for graduation rates. An un-intended consequence is that the institutions most likely to serve low-income families from a diverse background will lack funding opportunities as graduation rates are typically lower.

 

References:

Center for Migration Studies (2020) Retrieved from https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-reverse-migration-022620/?gclid=CjwKCAjw4871BRAjEiwAbxXi231xGKwfxreMENNlg8awj4fe2c5Vjf8MNLJbl6NEZdV7B2DTc7GPrRoC3tUQAvD_BwE

St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M. (2018). Public policy and higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access and college success (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.