1 / 22

Roadmap Affordability Workgroup

Roadmap Affordability Workgroup. ESD 113/Capital Event Center/Tumwater WA Agenda April 2, 2013 Introductions Review of information requested from previous meeting Aid types/sources over time Unmet need for lower income students over time

isadora-goodwin
Download Presentation

Roadmap Affordability Workgroup

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Roadmap Affordability Workgroup ESD 113/Capital Event Center/Tumwater WA Agenda April 2, 2013 • Introductions • Review of information requested from previous meeting • Aid types/sources over time • Unmet need for lower income students over time • Ratio of tuition as a percentage of income over time • Participation rates of Washington high school students • Income by sector for un-served

  2. Agenda continued • Summary of approach to affordability section of Roadmap • Proposed guiding questions and approach to affordability • Should the council propose an estimated appropriate share of student and state share of cost? • Should the workgroup establish some premises upon which to base policy options? i. Washington is approaching becoming a “high tuition/high aid” state ii. Washington’s primary focus in financial aid has been to “level the playing field” for low-income students

  3. Agenda continued c. Within the above framework, how can the current model of State Need Grant funding and delivery more efficiently address affordability? i. Targeting student eligibility – income threshold ii. Targeting student eligibility – incentives for success iii. Tying award amounts to public tuition iv. Coordination with other aid – “shared responsibility” approach

  4. Funding sources over 20 years

  5. Changes in aid sources and percentages

  6. Aid types over 20 years

  7. Changes in types of aid and percentages

  8. Unmet needs, excluding student loans, over the last four years

  9. Unmet need patterns over the last four years • Are higher for the students in the lowest Median Family Income (MFI) group of 0 -70% MFI: • $9,925 (versus $8,841)in 2011-12 • If students borrowed $5,000 per year, their unmet need would be lowered to $4,925 in 2011-12 • Unmet need has increased for both groups: • 0-70% MFI unmet need has increased by $528 • 71% MFI and over unmet need has increased by $372

  10. Unmet needs are increasing for low-income students

  11. Unmet needs are also increasing for moderate-income students

  12. Unmet need data by sector type

  13. WA tuition & fees over 19 years

  14. Increases in tuition & fees compared to WA MFI increases over 19 years MFI= WA Median Family Income for a Family of 4

  15. Tuition & fees increasing faster than family incomes Median family incomes have increased by 95% over 19 years while tuition and fees have increased from 255% at CTCs to 355% at Public Research universities.

  16. Students and families paying larger shares of tuition & fees

  17. Tuition versus State shares Source: Washington Public Higher Education Financing Key Indicators and Trends Fiscal Years 2000 to 2013 Washington Student Achievement Council (Illustration 1 – page 5)

  18. Un-served Eligible State Need Grant FTE Overall, 31% of eligible FTE are un-served. As a result of the distribution process, the portion of students by sector is the same for served and un-served students.

  19. MFI distribution varies by sector • 87% of all served students are in the lowest income group (0-50 MFI). • Decreasing portions of the eligible MFI groups are served due to prioritization in awarding. • 72% of the 0-50 MFI eligible students are served, 59% of the 51-55 group, 55% of the 56-60 group, 50% of the 61-65 group and 43% of the 66-70 group • Students attending four-year campuses are more likely to be un-served if they are in upper MFI ranges.

  20. Summary of approach to affordability section of Roadmap • Proposed guiding questions and approach to affordability • Should the council propose an estimated appropriate share of student and state share of cost? • Should the workgroup establish some premises upon which to base policy options? i. Washington is approaching becoming a “high tuition/high aid” state ii. Washington’s primary focus in financial aid has been to “level the playing field” for low-income students

  21. c. Within the above framework, how can the current model of State Need Grant funding and delivery more efficiently address affordability? i. Targeting student eligibility – income threshold ii. Targeting student eligibility – incentives for success iii. Tying award amounts to public tuition iv. Coordination with other aid – “shared responsibility” approach

  22. Next Steps • Next meeting April 16 • Discussionrelated to preparation and agenda

More Related