Vera Discussion:Hello all, In higher education financing a student’s tuition is a critical part of enrollment and admissions. The principal component of the funding for state colleges and universities comes from the state government, and ultimately tax dollars. Federal money is available through loans and grants to students, but the schools are primarily depending on state support. Our textbook presented four different higher education plans from California, Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan. These programs relied on state and federal funding but supplemented their budget with tuition in varying ways. Although each system began well and produced good results initially, all are faltering with recent downturns in the economy and political climate. California and its’ “Master Plan” developed a three-tiered system that promised education for all. Minnesota developed a high tuition system that subsidized “need-based” students with federal grant money. Indiana’s system of reaching out to high school students who would pledge to prepare for college in exchange for scholarships and grants is financed by the state budget. Michigan has high tuition and lower aid mode but their state colleges have constitutional autonomy. The Michigan colleges have adopted performance-based state funding models over the last couple of decades. Indiana has managed a hybrid system of need and merit scholarship funded by the state government. These four states have taken divergent paths to budgetary issues, but unfortunately, all have struggled to control tuition and enrollment numbers are declining All of these legacy systems require updates and have deficits in access. Arguably the Michigan system is the most resilient, but also has the worst track record for diversity and access. California has historically enjoyed good access and diversity but tuition increase and loss of grant monies have impeded low-income students from enrolling. Minnesota also has higher than average tuition, eroding state and federal aid, and is suffering from poor student outcomes. Of the four Indiana may have the best and most balanced system. Although they have also struggled with retention and outcomes, access and minority enrollment have improved in the last decade. All of these systems need updates and improvements to their state higher education systems and funding. Relying on tax dollars is a precarious funding model and each state system must work to find alternative paths to financial security while improving diversity, access, and outcomes.I hope you all are having a good week and I look forward to reading the posts,VeraReferences:St. John, E., Daun-Barrett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. (2018). Public Policy and Higher Education: Reframing Strategies … Retrieved May 14, 2020, from Discussion: Indiana’s higher education policies have greatly impacted college preparation, access and funding. All four policies focused heavily on providing access to students who come from low-income families. The one that really seemed to have the greatest influence was the 21stCentury Scholar’s program as it required the students to make a commitment to graduate without participating in compromising activities; it also allows the students to choose which institutions they would attend rather than forcing students to attend only public institutions (St. John, Daun-Barnett, Moronski-Chapman, 2018, p. 178-182). Additionally, the requirements for the Core 40 diploma were also beneficial for preparing students for higher education curriculum. The preparation from the Core 40 diploma curriculum allowed for an increase in enrollment; even though the Core 40 is the default curriculum, parents can opt for their students to not follow it, which can benefit some students (St. John, et. al, 2018, p. 184). The Anti-Dream Act poses several issues for access for students. The lack of support for undocumented students to receive aid creates another barrier for access (St. John, et. al, 2018, p. 196-197). Providing fair and equal access to education is a goal for many institutions, and policies such as the Anti-Dream Act can prohibit well-qualified, ambitious and knowledgeable students to opportunity to receive an education and benefit society. This policy demonstrates the conservative political atmosphere that Indiana has embraced.Overall, the four policies appear to be funded by the state. Indiana made the commitment to fund the full four years for students who pledged and fulfilled the 21stCentury Scholar’s program requirements; while the state was able to maintain these commitments for a while, they became unsustainable (St. John, 2018, p. 186-187). In more recent years, Indiana is in danger of becoming a high tuition/low aid state which is not congruent with the 21stCentury and Core 40 policies that the state initiated (St. John, et. al, 2018, p. 187). In order to sustain the funding needed for the policies, the state has turned to performance-based funding. The percentage has drastically changed over the past 10 years, but the 5% allocation may negatively affect graduation and tuition rates (St. John, et. al, 2018, p. 197). Performance based funding can motivate institutions to try and improve many aspects for enrollment, tuition and statistics, however, it can negatively impact institutions that are already performing well.Indiana has created polices that have increased access to higher education and improved college preparation. Policies such as 21stCentury Scholar’s program and the Core 40 policy have allowed for students who may be underrepresented or disadvantaged to receive more access to higher education institutions. Policies such as performance-based funding have the potential to positively or negatively impact access to higher education. If the state funding continues to decrease, access, graduation rates and competition rates will continue to be negatively impacted and can lead to detrimental consequences for students and society.ReferencesSt. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M. (2018).Public policy and higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access and college success(2nded.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Back To Top