Conditional Pell Dollars Miss Students Who Need Them Most
2014; Routledge; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1539-9664
Autores Tópico(s)Education Systems and Policy
ResumoEducation reform is a well-intentioned effort to improve outcomes for all students that is undercut by a misguided focus on achieving those goals on cheap. The proposal I've been asked to discuss, which would condition Pell Grants on readiness, is just latest example. This idea is redundant and expensive, and will decrease Pell's cost-effectiveness by exacerbating an existing trend toward retargeting aid to students who are less affected by it. Let's start with facts. As it stands today, federal Pell Grant program requires students to complete secondary school; no student can receive Pell unless she has a high school diploma. Until July 2012 there was an alternative way to obtain Pell via a standardized ability to test. That no longer exists. In this sense, college-readiness standards for Pell are stronger than ever and will be even stronger if Common Core State Standards initiative has its way with high school diploma. Moreover, Pell Grant also includes a satisfactory academic progress standard that ensures that students who are failing to make decent grades in college do not keep award. Typically set at a C average (2.0), close to mean grade-point average (GPA) of Pell recipients, that standard revokes funding from tens of thousands of students every year. Whether or not increasing standards is a positive step in right direction depends on one's perspective. If you are concerned about American dream, aiming to ensure that hard work and talent, rather than family background, determine children's opportunities, this is a move in wrong direction. The chances of a high school degree (and thus being eligible for Pell Grant) remain highly unequal based on family income and wealth, and ending any second-chance alternative pathways to federal financial aid reinforces that stratification. But it's already been done. In today's world, we must be concerned with what we get for our money, and Pell dollars are no exception. For this reason, it is instructive to return to creation of Pell Grant and its explicit purpose: the right of every youngster, regardless of his family's financial circumstances, to obtain a postsecondary education. Note focus on obtaining education, not merely accessing it. In this critical sense, Pell Grant is meant to support students as they move from college entry to college completion, and yet for last 30 years, that purpose has been all but forgotten. Moving students from low-income families from initial college entry to completion of degrees requires that Pell Grants effectively reduce costs of attendance so that students are able to work less and study more, and can overcome financial obstacles in their way. Its purchasing power has declined to point that it does not do this. Moreover, research indicates that low-income students who obtain a high school diploma but are not in top echelons of their school are most likely to need and benefit from financial assistance: they require extra time to devote to schoolwork and yet are more likely to have unmet financial need, since so-called aid rarely flows to them. When need-based financial aid programs like Pell Grant are evaluated, researchers tend to find that students reformers might not deem ready obtain greatest returns from effort. For example, Mark Schneider of American Enterprise Institute found that in both Texas and Louisiana aid worked best for students who faced a lot of unmet need partly because they did not qualify for aid based on their academic profiles. These students, however, are not focus of programs in their states. Similarly, economists Bridget Long and Ben Castleman found that Florida's Student Access Grant boosted college attainment most for students who graduated in top 25 percent of their high school graduating class but did not qualify for Florida's Bright Futures merit aid program. …
Referência(s)