You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Editorial columns

  • Ukraine needs world’s support in thwarting Russia
    After the “anschluss” of Crimea, the Kremlin proceeded in its war on Ukraine with a covert operation in our eastern regions. Russia is sticking to the same routine as in Crimea.
  • ‘STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY’
    I am not for containment in Iran. Let me repeat that, since no one seems to be listening closely: I am unequivocally not for containing Iran. I am also not for announcing that the United States should never contain Iran.
  • School standards receiving rushed treatment
    It’s Holy Week, during which Christians both mourn and celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, culminating in Easter on Sunday.Gov.
Advertisement

Let’s better target Pell Grant funding

Eliminating remedial courses would be robust move

Everyone, from President Obama to Rep. Paul Ryan to Bill Gates, seems to have an idea for improving the Federal Pell Grant Program for higher education.

Worthy though some of these efforts may be, none reveals the crux of the problem: A huge proportion of this $40 billion annual federal investment is flowing to people who simply aren’t prepared to do college-level work. And this is perverting higher education’s mission, suppressing completion rates and warping the country’s K-12 system.

About two-thirds of low-income community-college students – and a third of poor students at four-year colleges – need remedial (aka “developmental”) education, according to Complete College America, a nonprofit group. But it’s not working: Less than 10 percent of students who start in remedial education graduate from community college within three years, and just 35 percent of remedial students earn a four-year degree within six years.

What if the government decreed that three years hence, students would only be eligible for Pell aid if enrolled in credit-bearing college courses, thus disqualifying remedial education for support?

One could foresee various possible outcomes. Let’s start with the positive. Ambitious, low-income high-school students would know that if they want to attend college at public expense (probably their only option), they would first need to become “college-ready.”

To be considered successful, the high schools serving these young people would need to get their college-bound students to a college-ready level, not just get them to graduation. Likewise, state officials concerned about college completion would be prodded to ensure that their high schools produce college-ready graduates, maybe boosting graduation standards accordingly. Better yet, they might start to include college matriculation and graduation rates in their high-school accountability systems.

As for colleges, without a federal funding stream for remedial education, many would decide to become more selective.

This would probably raise the academic tenor of the institution. And with fewer students using Pell aid, we could afford to make each grant more generous.

In sum, disqualifying the use of Pell grants for remedial education would substantially reduce the gap between the number of students entering higher education and the number completing degrees.

Yes, there are obvious downsides. Most significantly, many students wouldn’t be able to afford remedial education and thus would never go to college. Millions of potential Pell recipients – many of them minorities – might be discouraged from even entering the higher-education pipeline. Such an outcome cuts against the American tradition of open access, as well as second and third chances.

Then again, it’s not so certain that these individuals are better off trying college in the first place. Most don’t make it to graduation.

Many would be more successful in job-training programs that don’t require college-level work (or would be better off simply gaining skills on the job). Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce estimates that more than a third of jobs today only require a high-school diploma or less. While these jobs won’t make young people rich, they will keep them out of the grip of poverty, and can propel them to new opportunities.

Furthermore, it isn’t fair to spend scarce dollars on students who aren’t prepared for college. It would be better to place our bets on low-income individuals who are most likely to succeed by boosting the maximum value of a Pell grant. (At $5,500 a year, it’s worth much less today than when Congress created the program decades ago.)

Perhaps the greatest risk is that colleges would respond to the new rules in a perverse manner: by giving credit for courses that used to be considered “remedial.” It’s hard to know how many institutions would be willing to disregard academic integrity in such a way. It would be incumbent on government agencies and watchdog groups to shame colleges that attempt to take this route.

On balance, withdrawing Pell subsidies from remedial courses appears promising enough to try. Congress should require the Department of Education to create a demonstration program in which colleges and universities volunteer to eliminate their remedial courses and, in return, their qualified low-income students become eligible for more-generous Pell-grant money, thus reducing their own financial-aid obligation.

Perhaps offer the deal to an entire state. Study what happens. Let’s find out.

Michael Petrilli is executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He wrote this for Bloomberg News.

Advertisement