Improving Research-Based Knowledge of College Promise Programs

Laura W. Perna, Edward J. Smith

• Publisher: American Educational Research Association
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780935302783
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Investigación en educación

Also known as "free tuition" and "free college" programs, college promise programs are an emerging approach for increasing higher education attainment of people in particular places. To maximize the effectiveness of their efforts and investments, program leaders and policymakers need research-based evidence to inform program design, implementation, and evaluation. With the goal of addressing this knowledge need, this volume presents a collection of research studies that examine several categories and variations of college promise programs. These theoretically grounded empirical investigations use varied data sources and analytic techniques to examine the effects of college promise programs that have different design features and operate in different places. Individually and collectively, the results of these studies have implications for the design and implementation of promise programs if these programs are to create meaningful improvements in attainment for people from underserved groups. The authors' efforts also provide a useful foundation for the next generation of college promise research.

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

Improving Research-Based Knowledge of College Promise Programs

LAURA W. PERNA

University of Pennsylvania

EDWARD J. SMITH

The Kresge Foundation

The many benefits that accrue to individuals who participate in higher education are well documented. People with higher education typically have higher earnings, higher rates of employment, lower likelihood of unemployment and poverty, better health, longer lives, and more (Ma, Pender, & Welch, 2016). The earnings premium realized by those with a college education has been growing since the mid-1970s (Carnevale & Rose, 2015), and the employment-related benefits of a bachelor’s degree were realized even during the Great Recession (Carnevale, Jayasundra, & Gulish, 2016).

Yet the opportunity to realize these benefits—as well as the many other economic and noneconomic benefits that tend to come with higher education—is unequal, as demonstrated by persisting differences in attainment across groups. College enrollment and completion rates are lower, on average, for individuals from lower-income families, individuals whose parents have not completed college, and African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians/Native Americans (Cahalan, Perna, Yamashita, Wright, & Santillan, 2018; Ma, Pender, & Welch, 2016). Higher education attainment also differs by place of residence, with variations across and within states (Perna & Finney, 2014; Perna & Ruiz, 2017). These and other differences in attainment contribute to the continued economic and social stratification of our society (Perna & Finney, 2014).

Ensuring that all people have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from high-quality higher education is important for reasons of social justice, as well as for the economic and social prosperity of our communities, states, and nation (Perna & Finney, 2014). Higher education provides benefits not only to participants but also to nonparticipants, because with higher rates of attainment come a higher tax base, less reliance on social welfare programs, lower rates of crime, and greater civic engagement (Ma et al., 2016). Society also benefits from having a workforce with the qualifications needed for available jobs. Sectors of the U.S. economy with more highly educated workers (e.g., health care, education, business services) are expanding, and technological changes are increasing the demand for educated workers across other sectors, including service and manufacturing (Carnevale & Rose, 2015). The United States needs higher levels of attainment to meet workforce needs and international competition, and the required levels of attainment cannot be achieved without raising attainment among groups that have historically been underserved by our nation’s educational structures and systems (Marcus, 2019; Perna & Finney, 2014).

A primary reason for persistent differences in educational attainment is unequal access to the resources needed to promote college opportunity and success. The availability of needed resources varies based on the structures in which people are embedded, including the places they live and the schools they attend (Perna, 2006). Illustrating the importance of considering the resources that are—and are not—available to people in different places, Chetty, Hendren, Kline, and Saez (2014) found, from their analysis of the incomes of more than 40 million children and their parents, that rates of upward income mobility in the United States are lower in commuting zones (that is, “aggregations of counties based on commuting patterns”) that have greater residential segregation by race and income, lower quality K–12 school systems, weaker social networks and community involvement, and more single parents. Other place-based resources that promote higher education opportunity and attainment but are unequally available include academically rigorous coursework in K–12 schools and geographic proximity to high-quality postsecondary options (Hillman, 2016; Iriti, Page, & Bickel, 2018; Perna, 2006).

Efforts to raise higher education attainment for people from historically underserved groups must also take into account the increasing costs of higher education for participants. Students make decisions about enrolling in college based on their assessment of their ability to pay the costs and their understanding of whether the benefits will exceed the costs (Perna, 2006). But the sticker price of college has increased dramatically over the past few decades. Published tuition and fees more than doubled between 1987–1988 and 2017–2018 (in constant 2017 dollars) at private not-for-profit institutions (rising from $15,160 to $34,740) and public two-year institutions (rising from $1,590 to $3,570) and more than tripled at public four-year institutions (rising from $3,190 to $9,970; College Board, 2017). Students are increasingly taking on debt to pay the costs of attending college, as both the share of undergraduates with loans and the average amount borrowed among those with loans have grown in recent years (Cahalan et al., 2018). In addition, many students are working for pay while enrolled in higher education, thereby reducing the time available to focus on academics (Perna, 2010b). In 2014, 7% of undergraduates age 16 to 24 who were enrolled as full-time students worked 35 or more hours per week and an additional 18% worked 20 to 34 hours per week (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016).

If students believe that attending college is financially feasible, then they may engage in other behaviors, such as taking courses that will academically prepare them for college and increase their likelihood of college success (Harris, 2013; Perna, 2010a). But understanding how much a given individual will actually have to pay to attend college is complicated both by the many different types and sources of financial aid that are potentially available and by the complexity of the financial aid application process (Dynarski & Wiederspan, 2012; Perna, 2010a). Most students do not learn their expected out-of-pocket costs of attendance until they have applied for admission, completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and received a financial aid offer from the college or university. Although the federal government mandates that colleges and universities have a net price calculator on their websites to provide prospective students with individualized estimates of expected college costs, the information that is presented is sometimes misleading and inaccurate, and the extent to which students and families use the tool is unknown (Cheng, Asher, Abernathy, Cochrane, & Thompson, 2012; Perna, Wright-Kim, & Jiang, 2018). Most students receive little assistance at their high schools in trying to understand actual college costs; the average K–12 school in the United States had 482 students per counselor in 2014–2015 (Clinedist & Koranteng, 2017), and few school counselors are trained as financial aid advisors (National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2017; Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Thomas, Bell, Anderson, & Li, 2008).

The College Promise Movement

College promise programs are an emerging approach to increasing the higher education attainment of people in particular places (Perna & Leigh, 2016). Catherine Millett and colleagues (this volume) contend that these programs, also known as “free tuition” and “free college” programs, provide a pledge, guarantee, and commitment that some portion of the costs of attending college will be covered. Advocates of free college (e.g., Eskow, 2014; Millett et al., this volume) maintain that public assurance that some costs will be covered is appropriate, given the importance of higher education to the well-being of individuals and society. Free college and college promise programs also signal that individuals have the right to higher education, just as they have the right to free public K–12 education.

Although the notion of free college is not new, many promise programs have emerged across the United States over the past two decades (Millett et al., this volume; Perna & Leigh, 2018). In 2015 then-president Barack Obama proposed America’s College Promise. With the goal of incentivizing the establishment of programs like the Tennessee Promise, the proposed $60 billion matching grant program would have eliminated tuition and fees for the first two years of enrollment at a community college (Executive Office of the President, 2015). Although the proposal was not enacted, programs with related goals have been created by state and local governments, colleges and universities, philanthropic organizations, and other entities. As of August 2016, there were 23 college promise programs in California alone, 13 of which were established in 2016 (Regional Educational Laboratory West, 2016). The state-sponsored free college programs in Tennessee, Oregon, and New York are other recently established initiatives. The movement now seems to be in full swing, as at least ten state candidates for governor in fall 2018 offered free college as part of their campaign platforms (Kreighbaum, 2018).

Whereas traditional financial aid programs (e.g., the Federal Pell Grant Program) award grants to students who demonstrate financial need or meet academic criteria, promise programs target resources beyond existing state and federal aid to individuals who live in designated places, meet local- or state-defined eligibility criteria, and/or attend specific K–12 schools (Perna, 2016). By offering a financial award to people who live in a designated neighborhood or attend specified K–12 schools, college promise programs may seek to improve college affordability and recognize variations in the magnitude and characteristics of resources that are, and are not, available in the local community to promote higher education attainment.

How College Promise Programs May Improve Higher Education Attainment

Considerable research documents the fact that, to enroll and succeed in college, students need the financial resources to pay the costs, academic preparation to complete college-level work, and information and support to navigate our nation’s complex educational systems (Perna, 2006). Yet the extent to which students have the necessary financial resources, academic preparation, and knowledge and support varies based on their families’ resources, characteristics of the K–12 schools and higher education institutions they attend and the communities in which they live, and the characteristics of federal, state, and local government policies (Perna, 2006).

The chapters in this volume offer consistent conceptualizations of the reasons that college promise programs may improve higher education attainment. First, college promise programs may improve college outcomes by increasing the financial resources available to pay college costs, especially when the aid is available to students from low-income families (Perna, 2016). One defining characteristic of promise programs is the provision of a financial award that builds on existing federal and state grant aid programs (Perna & Leigh, 2018). By providing a financial award, college promise programs reduce the costs of college enrollment and persistence for the students who receive it. Who benefits from a program’s financial award will depend on the population targeted and other program eligibility requirements.

College promise programs may also improve higher education attainment by providing a clear message that at least some costs of attendance are covered (Harnisch & Lebioda, 2016; Millett et al., this volume; Perna, 2016). Research suggests there are positive effects on college enrollment when the criteria for receiving financial aid are simple, clear, and transparent (Dynarski, 2000, 2004). The benefits may be particularly great when the message is targeted directly to potentially eligible students and when the program provides a generous financial award (e.g., four years of free tuition and fees) to attend a well-regarded selective four-year university (Dynarski, Libassi, Michemore, & Owen, 2018).

College promise programs also have the potential to smooth students’ transitions across educational sectors and institutions (Perna, 2016). By adopting a cross-sector approach that connects communities, K–12 schools, and higher education institutions (Millett et al., this volume), college promise programs may encourage the structural changes that are needed to ensure that all students are academically ready for higher education without the need for developmental coursework and that all students can transfer between higher education institutions without losing academic credit (Perna & Finney, 2014).

The Many Variations Among College Promise Programs

Whether college promise programs address these issues and actually improve attainment, especially for individuals from underserved groups, will depend on the characteristics and design of the program. Prior to this volume, most research focused on identifying the effects of a small number of relatively longstanding and comprehensive programs such as the Kalamazoo Promise. Miller-Adams (2015) labels the Kalamazoo Promise a “place-based scholarship program,” and describes place-based scholarship programs as “seek[ing] to transform their communities” by increasing college access and attainment, fostering “a college-going culture in both the K–12 system and community as a whole, and support[ing] local economic development” (Miller-Adams, 2015, p. 11). As Ritter and Swanson (this volume) hypothesize, an approach that improves K–12 academic achievement and encourages residents to move to or stay in a community may improve postsecondary education outcomes directly, as well as indirectly by improving students’ academic readiness for college and creating a college-going culture in the community. Research suggests that the Kalamazoo Promise raised academic expectations within K–12 schools (Miller-Adams & Timmeney, 2013; Miron, Jones, & Kelaher-Young, 2012) and increased the likelihood of college enrollment, number of college credits attempted, and probability of bachelor’s degree completion (Bartik, Hershbein, & Lachowska, 2015).

Although building research-based knowledge, findings from studies of the Kalamazoo Promise and other place-based scholarship programs (e.g., Pittsburgh Promise) are likely not transferable to the emerging variations of college promise programs. Place-based scholarships represent a particular category of college promise programs and differ from other categories in important ways (Perna & Leigh, 2018).

For instance, with the goals of transforming K–12 schools and encouraging local community and economic development, in addition to improving college enrollment, place-based scholarships exemplify a cross-sector approach. Many of the emerging college promise programs imply a cross-sector approach, but whether and how stakeholders actually work together is often not articulated or known. Moreover, unlike place-based scholarship programs, many of the newer programs do not pay explicit attention to increasing community and economic development; instead, they focus specifically on increasing college enrollment at a particular college or university. Programs that encourage students from designated high schools to attend a specified institution would seem to have the potential to smooth the transition from K–12 to higher education. Attention to this transition is important, given the numbers of students who now must complete developmental coursework before taking college-level courses (Simone, 2014). Programs that provide a financial award to attend a community college could also potentially include provisions that help reduce the loss of credits that many students now experience when they transfer from a two-year to a four-year institution (see Simone, 2014). ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Acknowledgments
• Contents
• 1 Introduction Improving Research-Based Knowledge of College Promise Programs
• 2 Setting the Stage A History and Overview of the College Promise Movement
• Part 1 What Do We Know From Prior Research About the Effects of Promise Programs?
• Part 2 What Are the Effects of Different Types of College Promise Programs?
• Part 3 What Forces Contribute to the Establishment of a Promise Program?
• Part 4 Where Do We Go From Here?
• About the Contributors