Low-Income Single Mothers--Is Higher Education Even an Option?

The clients that enter the agency I work for (A Woman's Place, Inc.) have several obstacles in front of them. They have fled and survived an abusive relationship, they are attempting to "start over" financially, emotionally, and physically, and a vast majority of them have children solely in their care. Additionally, in my three years in this field, the number of women I have worked with that are ABOVE the poverty threshold, can be counted on my fingers...on one hand. In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau listed the poverty threshold for one individual at $11,139 in income/year, and for each additional person (i.e. children), that number climbs by $3,079 per person.

During the intake process at my agency, one question we are required to ask incoming clients is "Yearly Income" (for statistical purposes, and to see trends that I'm about to explore with you). Keeping in mind our strict confidentiality policies, I wanted to provide those of you who choose to read this blog with some real-life context. I pulled 15 random files from our office--current and past clients. On the intake form, this income question has a check box in front of four levels. Yet, all 15 files fall into one category:

$0--25,000/year--(15).

What I find interesting is the very next question we ask incoming clients; "Highest education Level." The breakdown is as follows:

Less than high school diploma (5); high school equivalent (diploma or GED) (7), some college--(3); college degree-- (0).

How many of these pulled files list families (single women with children?)

13 out of 15.

What are we looking at here?

In a study in Higher Education (2004) titled, "Becoming a Mature Student: How Adult Applicants Weigh the Advantages and Disadvantages of Higher Education" (UNC Library database--EBSCOhost), one category for participants was listed as "Single Parents." These individuals were defined as, "Single parents (predominantly women) who have families to support not only financially, but also socially and emotionally (role model). They are increasingly exhorted by government to seek qualification as a way out of social exclusion yet find themselves in a dilemma in that studying to ensure a better family future may well impact on children today" (p. 297). For the participants studied, the positive elements influencing their choices to enter higher education included needing a good job to support the family, wanting to be a role model, and enjoying learning. However the negative factors far-outweighed the positive. These included lack of self-belief, financial "catch-22," timetable difficulties, childcare problems, and juggling responsibilities of family, work, and study. The general message from the female single parents interviewed--the need for financial stability.

In another recent study from the Harvard Educational Review (2009), an article titled, "Poverty and the (Broken) Promise of Higher Education" (UNC Library database--ProQuest), the author explains the desire and motivation by single low-income mothers that is continuously short-handed by the increasingly limited opportunities and support available to this "at-risk" population. The author interviews members of this group who have attempted to obtain an undergraduate degree. Those who were unable to complete two consecutive semesters in their programs, listed their top reasons for their "failure:" Inability to juggle the demands of family, work, and school (73%), inadequate child-care or insufficient child-care funds (69%), lack of academic support (65%), and inability to afford tuition or financial aid insufficient (33%). There were more reasons listed, and as you can see, these numbers don't add up to 100%--there weren't cases where only one obstacle existed for these single mothers.

There are many other contributing factors that can play into this argument. Yet in my daily work, I see the same societal pressures placed on these individuals that are consistently unsupported and sometimes...impossible.

"Just go get a job." ---> Minimum wage jobs (for positions not requiring a college degree) in Colorado pay $7.36/hour

"Just go back to school." Average tuition for a public four-year institution in the U.S. is approximately $12,796/year.

"Just find a babysitter." The national average cost for full-time day care in the U.S. is approximately is $611/month...and this figure is for one child.

This list could go on.

I am not without awareness that many of these families qualify for government assistance. However, the limits and additional double-binds associated with current welfare reform are outside the scope of this post. I believe that more attention and support should be passed to these families regarding the access of higher education. Changing the messages from "You should ____" to "You can _____, and here is how we can make it possible," would be a great start.

Kylie Rogalla

Probing Deeper into Proposition 103

As previous posts have discussed, if enacted, Proposition 103 would temporarily raise both the state income tax rate (back to its 1987 level) and the state sales and use tax rate (back to its 2000 level). The full text of Proposition 103 includes the following statements:

1. The revenues raised by the increase in taxes imposed pursuant to this measure may be collected, kept, and spent notwithstanding any other limits in the constitution or other law (meaning that the Tax Payers Bill of Rights (“TABOR”) Amendment, the Gallagher Amendment, Amendment 23, and Referendum C do not apply to these additional funds).

2. All revenues raised by the increase in taxes imposed pursuant to this measure…shall be appropriated by the general assembly only for the costs of public education from preschool through twelfth grade and public post-secondary education.

3. Allocation of moneys required by this section be in addition to and not a substitute for moneys otherwise appropriated by the general assembly, which shall be in an amount not less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2011-12.

What is the source of the funding?

4. Five percent is imposed on the federal taxable income (which is an individuals’s total income minus adjustments and tax credits/payments), as determined pursuant to section 63 of the internal revenue code, of every individual, estate, and trust

5. Prior to the application of the rate of tax prescribed in subsection (1), (1.5), or (1.7), or (1.9) of this section, the federal taxable income shall be modified as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

6. SECTION 3. 39-22-301(1)(d)(I)(I), Colorado Revised Statutes is amended, and the said 39-22-301(1)(d)(I) is further amended by the addition of a new subsubparagraph to read:

39-22-301 Corporate Tax Imposed. (1)(d)(I) A tax (of 5%) is imposed upon each domestic C corporation and foreign C corporation doing business in Colorado annually in an amount of the net income of such C corporation during the year derived from sources within Colorado….

For those of us who prefer the bulleted format, here is a summary and what I believe to be some implications of key issues, concerns, and contradictions in the full text of this proposition:

1. The last time that Coloradans voted to allow the legislature to decide how to use funding that was promised to go at least in part to education, it was used on transportation (Referendum C in 2005). That is probably why this proposition includes explicit language that these funds must be used for public education.

2. Allocations of money from this proposition must be in addition to 2011-2012 fiscal year levels, even though it is already publically acknowledged that the fiscal year 2012-2013 that will be released on election day is likely to include cuts of $50 million to $100 million. The expectation of cuts is according to Lt. Governor Joe Garcia when he spoke to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education at their meeting on October 6, 2011, just before the CCHE voted to endorse the proposition.

3. Individual income taxes are based on “adjusted gross income” that preferentially benefits individuals who can itemize deductions.

4. An apparently new 5% tax on corporate income, although I do not fully understand how much these corporations currently pay in state income taxes, and cannot follow the FYI handout on the topic of corporate taxes provided by the State.

In my opinion, this Proposition is at least partially an attempt to fix the lack of education funding provided by Referendum C (from which the majority of funding went to non-education-related, yet still vital, state projects and it’s two years of no additional revenue due to the economic decline that began in 2008-2009) and TABOR which has left Colorado with a permanently diminished tax base due to the resetting of tax limits based on the previous year’s revenue. This “ratchet” effect means that once the economy starts growing again, government revenue use is limited to the rate of inflation plus population growth. In lay terms, I think this means that if inflation is 1.0%, and population holds steady, a revenue drop of 10% in one year would require that state spending drop 9% (on a year to year basis) for the following year. This would be the case even if by chance the next year’s revenue bounced back to its original level. In other words, it would take 10 years to return to the baseline spending authority. [I am open to correction of this analysis because I am not sure if I have stated this correctly.]

At the end of the day on November 1, I fear that the voters of Colorado will not have had enough unbiased information to determine one way or another whether this proposition will do what it is purportedly intended to do.

Alumna Fights Against Proposed Differential Tuition

Recently, alumna and employee at the University of Albany, Greta Petry, fought and won against the State Universities of New York's (SUNY) proposal to incorporate differential tuition throughout the state system. In the story published in the most recent issue of AFT On Campus, Petry explains that half of her family would not have been able to afford college if differential tuition had been in place when she and her siblings attended SUNY schools and that this change in tuition affects equitable access to education.

The SUNY system is the most recent in a long line of state institutions moving towards off-setting budget cuts. A brief published by the University ofWashington cites figures showing public institutions charging varying rates based on degree programs has jumped from five in 1988 to 45% by 2008. In fact, the San Francisco Chronicle indicates that as of March of this year, 57% of U.S. public research universities utilize this practice.

Even at the University of Northern Colorado, non-liberal arts core classes are charged differently, with Nursing courses rated the most expensive at $64. UNC’s policy is that this still allows students to afford liberal arts core courses while creating revenue that helps keep quality programs afloat, budget wise. This is similar in argument to anarticle from inside higher ed as early as 2007 that proposed more public institutions would adopt this attitude as state support declined, program specific tuition policies increased.

I understand the need to make certain public institutions as well as academic programs can move towards being more self sufficient, particularly during times of state budget cuts. My undergraduate program was quite costly in that the College of Art had higher student fees to maintain facilities such as the kiln and printing press and provide materials to students, such as computer labs. However, the question remains for me: are some students being priced out of their desired degree? Are students being considered when these policies are implemented?

It seems some of the students at theseinstitutions have opinions on this question and agree with Petry that these polices are unfair. At least some schools are taking into account what the students have to say by attempting toget student input and, as the University of Wisconsin guidelines show,some schools are putting a great deal of thought into how to provide access and assistance to resident students. Perhaps with this sort of thoughtful principles in place, and with students taking an active role in the debate, alumni such as Petry will not need to be on the front of the differential tuition issue. 

Tuition Angels

Tuition rates are rising rapidly, making the goal of a quality college education much harder to obtain for many families. The financial crisis that is currently gripping the country has further decimated the budgets of many Americans who were already teetering on a fiscal cliff. As a result, people are spending less, meaning that states are collecting less in taxes, which ultimately leads to cuts in state budgets. At least here in Colorado, higher education is one of the first programs to endure budget cuts, leaving schools with already lean budgets and tight operations with few options other than raising tuition costs. One CU Boulder professor has suggested getting rid of in-state tuition, and charging a flat rate for all students as a way of helping to ease the budget crisis there.

The price of education has tripled since 1990, making this goal unobtainable for many. I attended a local junior college for two years at a much cheaper rate than I would have faced at a four-year university. Even then, I fought for every scholarship, grant, and work-study job that I could get my hands on. Graduating in 5 1/2 years, my student loan debt was a "manageable" sum of $17,000. I'm glad I took the path that I did...attending a junior college, then transferring to an in-state university. I'm even more glad that I was able to complete the first stage of my education almost 20 years ago.

Students today are graduating with tens of thousands of dollars of debt into one of the worst job markets in recent memory. For example, the in-state tuition for a CU undergraduate in the business program is almost $6900 per semester. A student from out of state, in that same business program, will pay $16,200 per semester. This is before any fees or living costs are added to the bill. Unbelievable!!! That is as much as I had in total debt for 5 1/2 years! And these figures are for a public university. Some private universities are charging $35,000 per year in tuition and fees! Thankfully, many schools, including CU Boulder, are offering an out-of-state undergraduate tuition guarantee that will lock in the current rate for your undergraduate classes.

My family was not the most well-off when I was growing up, so when it came time to look at attending college, I chose the most economical options available to me. Attending a private school, or even an out-of-state school, was simply not an option for me. Some families are able to afford sending their children to out-of-state schools with a good reputation, including CU Boulder, which is touted as Colorado's "flagship" school. With the cost of out-of-state tuition so high at CU, many students are looking at options to help reduce their costs. A recent article in the Boulder Daily Camera tells of a company named Tuition Angels that guarantees that they will get you in-state tuition faster than waiting for the one-year residency requirement, or you pay them nothing.

Of course, this service comes at a cost. From the Daily Camera article: "Tuition Angels doesn't charge students unless they gain residency. Then, the company charges 10 percent for what students would have paid for out-of-state tuition due every semester the student pays in-state tuition." For some, this would equal an annual savings of almost $20,000. "Tuition Angels' website tells students: 'There's more gray area than you know and we are experts at navigating that gray area' and 'we guarantee to get you in state tuition in the fastest way legally possible or you pay us nothing.'"

Worth it? I think each person needs to weigh the risks and rewards carefully.

Homeless College Students

The typical depiction of a homeless person is a middle-age male, possibly a veteran, with either a mental or physical handicap. This is a portion of the homeless population in our community (and one that takes up many resources), however, the average age of the homeless is 9.

In the Poudre School District alone, there are 80 identified homeless high school students, and significantly more in foster care. Of those who are in foster care, only 2% will graduate from college.

Three years ago, the Catholic Charities shelter in Fort Collins turned away 80 people. Two years ago, they turned away 300. Last year they turned away 900. The problem and prevalence of homelessness is growing.

This is a population that is often overlooked and, if they are able to attend college, have significant and under-resourced needs. These unaccompanied youth have significant academic, transition, and access needs.

Insider Higher Ed reports that institutions have a better ability to identify these students thanks to the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. However, admissions departments do not generally seek this information from incoming students. For groups that try to support these students, they often have a hard time identifying them. With Pell, Chafee, and other grants, students have more opportunity than ever to attend college. However, they still face hardships of providing food, shelter, and health insurance. NPR reports that students, wanting to fit in, often hide their hunger and homelessness.

How do we support this unique population? I believe it starts with identifying students who are unaccompanied youth, either because they are homeless or because they aged out of the foster care system. Schools should develop committees or work groups that reach out to these students, especially during holiday breaks when they might be displaced from their residence halls. Committees may be able to help waive the cost of a student ID, apply food stamps to a meal plan, and connect students to financial aid resources.

We need to implement support systems for this population both before they come to college and while they attend. Students in foster care change high schools an average of 7 times in four years. One student I met with was in 15 different foster homes in 12 months (read another students' story here). This group doesn't have the opportunity to build a lasting relationship with a high school counselor. They need admissions staff who connect to them and help them believe they can attend college. This is part of the mission of the Chafee College Connect Conference, a three day experience (on a college campus) that helps foster youth to see college as part of their future. I had the opportunity to attend this conference this summer and the stories, drive, and potential in these students are inspirational and largely untapped.

Unaccompanied youth need staff from financial aid to recognize their unique needs and help them write grants, apply for scholarships, and identify academic supports. We have a poor job retaining this group of students. Of the 47,204 college students that self-identified as homeless in 2009, half of them dropped out.

Homeless college students are a growing population our college campuses. We need creative and collaborative solutions to reach out to these students. We can recruit and retain them better as we identify them and their unique challenges.

**I am involved with Fort Collins Homeward 2020 ten year plan to make homelessness rare, short lived, and non-recurring. Specifically, I am part of the youth advocacy task force and volunteer with the Matthews House in their work with unaccompanied youth. Some of the information in this blog comes from research based in that group. You can read more about that group here, and more about the Matthews House here.**

Should Colleges Withdraw Students Who Threaten or Attempt Suicide?

A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education highlights Lisa Russ Sparr's personal account of experiencing the effects of a friend's suicide. I appreciated her honest description of the chaos, confusion, anger, sadness, and unanswerable questions that remained following her friend's death. The topic of suicide is often avoided and kept silent which further isolates those who struggle with the pain each day. I value this article because I think suicidal ideation is present in many of the students we teach, advise and mentor.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for students attending American universities and colleges. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention reports that suicide is the third leading cause for individuals aged 15-24, the very age of our traditional college students. Although the issue of suicide is often kept silent, we cannot deny the fact that it exists on our campuses. Suicide is a profoundly saddening event and on a college campus a student suicide can bring many unique challenges. Death by suicide needs to be dealt with differently than other deaths or tragedies. Universities may fear liability and/or negative publicity when dealing with suicide on their campus.

Upon further investigation about how suicide is handled on college campuses, I found an article that discusses a recent movement that completely removes suicidal students from the university. The story in this article depicts a student who was mourning the death of a friend who recently died by suicide. This student took prescription pills and after consumption he feared that he too would have suicidal thoughts so he asked a friend to take him to the hospital. Less than a day later the student learned that the university was kicking him out of his dorm room and mandating him to withdraw from his classes or he could face expulsion or criminal charges for violating the code of student conduct because the university views suicidal attempts as violent acts.

The purpose of this growing trend to remove students from the college campus is reported to be in the student's best interest. I have difficulty seeing how this is the best interest of a suicidal student. To me, the university is viewing these students as criminals instead of individuals who are deeply troubled and facing profound emotional pain. Coming from the counseling field, I will always put a student's well-being before the fear of a lawsuit. There has to be other ways that the university can protect themselves against a lawsuit as well as help the student recover. If a university has knowledge of the student's suicidal thoughts and warning signs and still chooses to ignore this instead of helping the student then a university should be sued. It is a different story if a university, however, knows of a student's struggle with suicidal ideation and makes documented efforts to provide the student appropriate resources while allowing them to remain in school.

Overall, this is an important discussion to have as university practitioners and professors. We spend considerable amount of time with students and therefore are in vital positions to detect warning signs of suicidal ideation. Parents are told to know their children, pay attention to what is going on in their lives, and be aware of altering behaviors. My belief is that once a student is a part of our campus, we have a duty to these students. We must be their parent/guardian's eyes and ears. I am not suggesting that each of us pry into students' lives and become over-sensitive and over-involved. I am suggesting that each of us at least be cognizant of warning signs and appropriate steps to take if we fear a student may be experiencing suicidal ideation.

Although providing warning signs may not contribute to our discussion on the topic for the purpose of this course, I fear I would be ignoring my duty as a counselor to not use this opportunity for a psycho-educational experience by posting these facts:

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention report warning signs of suicidal ideation. Refer to the website for more information:

Observable signs of serious depression:

• Unrelenting low mood


• Pessimism


• Hopelessness


• Desperation


• Anxiety, psychic pain and inner tension


• Withdrawal


• Sleep problems


• Increased alcohol and/or other drug use


• Recent impulsiveness and taking unnecessary risks


• Threatening suicide or expressing a strong wish to die

Making a plan:

• Giving away prized possessions


• Sudden or impulsive purchase of a firearm


• Obtaining other means of killing oneself such as poisons or medications


• Unexpected rage or anger

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: "The emotional cries that usually precede suicide are often recognizable and treatable. Although most depressed people are not suicidal, most suicidal people are depressed. Serious depression can be manifested in obvious sadness, but often it is rather expressed as a loss of pleasure or withdrawal from activities that had been enjoyable. One can help prevent suicide through early recognition and treatment of depression and other psychiatric illnesses."

ADMIT WEALTHY AND INTERNATIONAL AND FORGET AVERAGE JOE

ADMIT WEALTHY AND INTERNATIONAL AND FORGET ABOUT AVERAGE JOE

At a time when universities across the nation are struggling financially to survive, admissions directors have begun practicing or in some cases have been practicing what some may consider a practical solution while at the same time, others may see as favoring the rich. Who is to blame for these new strategies? The state? The institutions? Controversial strategies that admissions directors are using are described as well as the rise of using agents to recruit international students.  Implications of these new strategies are considered regarding access to higher education and the ethics of the admissions profession.    

        

A disturbing trend that has been going on for a few years is some admission directors are intentionally recruiting more students who can pay more.  A survey done by Inside Higher Ed revealed that 462 top admissions officials nation wide, claim to target students who come from out-of-state, because they pay more than in-state students, and international students.   According to the survey, at public doctoral and master’s institutions admissions directors admit that recruitment of full-pay students is a key strategy rather than providing aid for low-income students.  To the extent, that at doctoral institutions the gap was 47 percent to 40 percent, and at master’s institutions, the gap was 45 percent to 38 percent. What’s more is that 10 percent of four-year colleges admit that the full-pay recruits have lower grades and test scores than other applicants. 

Admissions directors cite that they have been under pressure for quite some time by their colleges to fill classes for economic reasons rather than educational. Inside Higher Ed has also reported that flagship universities have been recruiting out-of-state applicants for years. The main reason is that public universities can charge them more plus lowers the chances of raising in-state rates since the well of the state has run dry. Robert Birgeneau, chancellor for the University of California at Berkeley, hopes to send a message to the state by admitting more out-of-state applicants. He hopes that he will anger California residents and the state will once again contribute to paying for the University of California.

By recruiting out-of-state and international students, this strategy has yet to unfold. For example, admissions directors worry that recruiting out-of-state students who can pay high tuition rates will marginalize others; therefore, access to higher education will again only benefit white wealthy students. Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, agrees that if universities like California only focus on non-resident students then the student population will be less diverse. Similarly, issues concerning international students are companies complaining that they will not hire international students due to visa issues, also the concern of whether the international students will contribute back to their alma maters as much as other alums, and an increase in communication challenges with faculty and staff.

The survey also reported that 22 percent of four-year universities are recruiting international students with the use of agents who are paid in part on commission. Conversely, 33 percent who are not using agents are considering doing so in the near future. Some agents do not have a good reputation. Some have been known to assist international applicants to fabricate information. Even proponents of the use of agents claim that they are often dishonest, which is why there needs to be regulation. At least some admissions directors are still holding on to the student affairs code of ethics by supporting the policy by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) to bar the use of agents to recruit international students.    

Finally, it seems that who ever has more money has preferable access to higher education.  Where is the code of ethics? Is it not true that student affairs practitioners are to abide by a code of ethics such as “do not harm” or “benefit of others.” It’s a shame that we live in a time when admissions directors are losing control over who they should admit. Also from the survey, here are some statistics of the outside pressure they face: 28 percent claim that they experienced pressure from senior-level administrators; 24 percent claim that they experienced pressure from trustees and; 24 percent claim that they have experienced pressure from the development office and big donors. Notwithstanding all this, I am an optimist and I hope that admissions directors will redirect the current trend by believing in their set values and once again promote educational opportunity and diversity in higher education.

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/admissions2011