College voucher program under fire

Critics say system, started in 2004, isn't working right

By Myung Oak Kim, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, May 16, 2008

Linda McConnell / Special To The Rocky

Andrew Robbins, 18, of Thornton looks over the Metro State class schedule on his laptop at student orientation in the Tivoli Student Union on the Auraria Campus in Denver. Robbins heard about College Opportunity Fund and plans to apply for it.

In 2004, Colorado took a bold, new approach to funding higher education. Rather than state money going directly to public colleges and universities, most would be put in vouchers that students could use for tuition.

The program had several aims. A system of no-strings aid would allow more lower-income students to pursue a college degree. The competition for students and their vouchers would encourage schools to improve programs. And the funding system would remove college revenue from the limitations of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

But the College Opportunity Fund, or COF, has been hobbled by a struggling economy, red tape and high administrative costs, say educators and others. The only system of its kind, COF was born when Republicans were in power; now Democrats run the show and they are skeptical of the approach.

Since COF went into place, the low-income college student population statewide has dropped, a trend that runs contrary to a key goal of the program.

Schools say COF is too complicated. While most eligible students get the stipend, more than 3,000 this year didn't apply and needlessly paid up to $2,600 more for their education or defaulted on their bills.

"The bottom line is that COF was a noble goal that met reality," said Tony Kinkel, president of Pikes Peak Community College in Colorado Springs. "It's time to get rid of it."

David Skaggs, a former Democratic congressman and now executive director of the state Department of Higher Education, said he's received only complaints about the funding system.

"There's a consistent theme . . . all in the 'We avoided TABOR but other than that this isn't worth it category.' "

Still, some defend the concept while conceding the program isn't working right.

"I believe in markets and the power of markets and communicating to people that they have control over their funds," said Tim Foster, former head of the state higher education department and current president of Mesa State College in Grand Junction. "I think that's a very powerful message if delivered right. I don't think it was delivered."

Lawmakers, including Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, want to take a critical look at COF during the next legislative session. Both have expertise in higher education funding.

"I think COF is overly cumbersome and for no real point . . . so why do it?" Keller said.

Said Schwartz: "It's counterproductive, and it's costly. I'd have to be convinced that it's actually something that would benefit us to keep, because I . . . am not seeing a benefit."

Students fail to apply

Jennifer Phou knows exactly how complicated the COF process can be.

The week before classes begin each semester, Phou, a collections worker at Metropolitan State College of Denver, and her colleagues try to contact 1,000 or so students who have not completed the two-step application process.

Full in-state tuition is a combination of the COF stipend and the student's share. To get the stipend, the student must fill out an initial one-time application online. Then each semester, he or she fills out a form authorizing the state to pay the stipend to the school where the student is enrolled.

The state sends the money directly to the college or university. Students never see any of the cash.

Students who don't complete the COF application are responsible for paying the full amount, including the portion that would have been covered by the College Opportunity Fund.

By the end of each semester, about 400 Metro State students on average still haven't applied, Phou said.

"It's kind of disappointing . . . that these students don't get the money," Phou said. "We do feel bad for them."

Metro State has one of the highest number of non-applicants. But the same routine - compiling a list of students who haven't applied, tracking them down, explaining the process and reminding them to follow through, goes on everywhere else.

Phou said some students don't get the stipend because her office can't reach them. Others don't bother to go through the process because their parents or employers are paying tuition. Some don't want to take a government handout.

Catherine Moya-Bean, 17, never heard of COF until she attended orientation last Wednesday at Metro State.

The program needs more publicity to get the word out to students, said Moya-Bean, who now intends to apply.

She said everybody knows about federal student aid, "but no one knows about COF."

Hailed by Republicans

Colorado's higher education experiment began in May 2004, when then-Gov. Bill Owens signed Senate Bill 189.

The bill, hailed by Republicans and sponsored by former Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, and former Rep. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, instituted the voucher system to replace direct grants based on enrollment to Colorado's 27 public colleges and universities. The concept was developed during lengthy meetings with an Owens' blue ribbon commission, led by Bruce Benson - now president of CU.

"I think vouchers will make it clear to all Coloradans, especially the neediest, that the state is investing in their education, and they need to take advantage of that investment," Owens told a group of educators a month after he signed the measure.

The bill also had another goal - to free colleges and universities from the restrictions of TABOR.

The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights limits how much money from all sources the state can take in to fund government services. At the time, tuition was applied toward the TABOR revenue ceiling. Exceeding the ceiling meant the state might have to give refunds.

SB 189 created a loophole. It granted "enterprise" status to public colleges and universities. Put simply, that meant tuition and most of the money colleges get from the state wouldn't count toward the TABOR revenue cap. And that would give schools more flexibility to seek tuition increases.

Besides vouchers, SB 189 also set up a second funding stream, called fee for service contracts, which paid for programs not covered by stipends such as graduate studies and job skills training.

While the precise effect of COF is unclear, all has not gone according to plan:

* The voucher amount was originally supposed to be $4,700 a year; a slumping economy chipped away at that amount. It's now about $2,000 less.

* Since COF's first year in 2005, the number of low-income Colorado college students, measured by those receiving the federal Pell grant, has dropped 8 percent, according to the state Department of Higher Education.

* Overall enrollment has fluctuated and recently rose slightly, but school officials attribute that increase to economic factors rather than to COF.

* Hundreds of students now are hitting the limit of college credits covered by COF. The plan pays for 145 credit hours. Students can obtain waivers, but those run out.

* CU aside, the larger schools or systems spent $1.5 million to implement the program, which required new computer systems and additional staff. CU did not provide a figure.

* The legislature tells each school what it likely will receive based on estimated enrollments. Then it is supposed to adjust the funding once actual enrollment numbers come in. But that didn't happen this year.

Nancy McCallin, president of the Colorado Community College System, which oversees 13 schools, said her colleges saw an increase of more than 800 students this year above projections. The system should have received an additional $2.2 million from the state but didn't.

University of Northern Colorado saw a drop of more than 580 students compared with its forecasts. But it still kept the $1.5 million for those empty seats.

Skaggs, the higher ed chief, noted that Colorado's public colleges are scrambling for dollars. He said the state didn't want to take money from schools that missed projections to pay those that exceeded expectations.

But McCallin feels cheated.

"When you do really . . . try and get students in the door and then you don't get funded for the additional students . . . it makes it very difficult," she said.

"The philosophy of 'the money should follow the student' has not held true."

Daunting challenges

The COF also symbolizes a political and philosophical divide over how to improve education - and whether vouchers work.

Skaggs calls COF a "Darwinian view of a free-market model for public higher education (that) may have seemed theoretically attractive. In practice, it's a nonstarter."

Owens, a Republican, said COF should not be dismantled.

"I also understand that with the new Democratic legislature and the new Democratic governor, who are very tied to higher education as we have known it, that fundamental change across administrations is difficult."

Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: Colorado faces daunting challenges in higher education. The state ranks almost last in the country for its funding of colleges, and 45th for the percent of native born students who earn bachelor's degrees.

But momentum has been building in the last year to address those problems. With the support of Gov. Bill Ritter, the legislature has committed $51 million more for higher education next year, the largest gain in recent history. And cash- strapped construction projects also will get a new money stream from a law that taps oil and gas drilling revenue on federal lands. Ritter also is pushing a ballot initiative that would generate $100 million a year for college scholarships.

Benson, who helped craft COF, said it is not the biggest problem that colleges face. He sees the lack of operating dollars as the most pressing need. Still, Benson supports taking a hard look at COF.

"I'm sure it needs some tweaking," Benson said.

Stephen Jordan, president at Metro State and a voucher supporter, said he would like to keep the funding flexibility allowed by COF but otherwise get rid of the program.

But he doesn't know what the better model is.

"The (school) presidents have talked about this quite a bit. At least yet, no one has come up with an answer."

kimm@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2361

• May 17, 2008

  6:01 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  goose writes:

  The whole purpose of COF was to work around Tabor in order to raise Colorado funding for higher ed out of the basement compared to other states. Getting rid of Tabor would be a far simpler solution to multiple funding problems. We gave ourselves tax refunds when times were good, rather than fix obvious problems with education, highways, etc. We are idiots with only ourselves to blame! There is NO FREE LUNCH!

• May 17, 2008

  7:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  vudumom writes:

  It shows the complexity of filling out a form that students must do to get free money. College students shouldn't have to fill out a state form to get financial help from the state. It is just too much for them. The school systems they are coming from don't teach that kind of knowledge. It seems unfair to expect them to take the inititive and take advantage of college funds they have access to but ( and this is the worst part) have to fill a form out. It's outrageous!What are we saying to our high school students that may have to fill out a form to get college aid? Shouldn't someone be there at graduation with a pile of money on a silver platter so they don't have to go through the difficult task of filling out forms? What is our education system coming to!

• May 17, 2008

  9:02 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  Goose move to one of those great states with "free lunches". New York or Mississippi don't have such restrictions on sticking it to the tax payer. Maybe you would feel more comfortable in a higher taxing state.

  Go vudumom Go!!!

• May 17, 2008

  9:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Art writes:

  I have two daughters in college. Both filled out these forms and were denied the aid. No reason given. We were unable to find anyone who could answer just what the criteria were to be eligible for the aid. They were both born and raised in Colorado and I have an advanced degree yet we are not able to get the aid and we are unable to find out why. This is a scam that the state is running in order to get the tuition to a higher level. I would be interested to know just how many students applied for this aid and what percentage are denied. I would also really like to know what the criteria are for the aid. Both daughters are on their own and working, one part time, one full time, to be able to afford to go to school. Maybe they will not allow anyone working to get the aid. Anyone know what is required?

• May 17, 2008

  10:11 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  coloradojess writes:

  Art I am not sure, My Son goes to UNC and applied for the aid in HS. So far he has gotten it but I noticed in the summer when he takes a couple classes at a local college PPCC he has to accept the aid every summer. I do know you cannot have more than 145 credit hours or a bachelors degree and that the college or university is approved for the program by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. So all colleges may not be approved. But the fact your girls are working should not affect it.

• May 17, 2008

  8:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  davidyorke writes:

  There is similar program in Illinois (where I was born and attended college) called MAP (Monetary Award Program). The process to earn a MAP grant is the same as for other financial aid. Fill out the FAFSA. THAT'S IT!

  Why can't the State of Colorado make this 100% easier by including it in the rest of the financial aid process? The only possible reason I can think of is that they are trying to avoid another CBMS or CSTARS debacle.

  Furthermore, I think it would behoove the schools to approach employers paying tuition and alert them to the subsidies available for students. Requiring their employees to accept all available grants would make it cheaper to send people to school and thereby encourage employers to send more people to school. This may even encourage more organizations to come to Colorado. It's a win-win for the schools and employers. Of course, taxpayers are left with the check. Thankfully, TABOR is in place to protect them from abuse.

  Lastly, I think its not a valid argument to say a badly implemented program is a "nonstarter". We can't know if legislation is fatally flawed until we get a genuine "best effort" from the agency in charge of the program and the result remains unsatisfactory. After that, there should be a legislative investigation to determine the next steps (repeal, reform, new personnel/leadership).

• May 18, 2008

  12:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Diane_G writes:

  I'm a CU undergrad and I think it would be a shame to eliminate the program. It is the only program that gives money directly to all Colorado students. Although the Governor and the legislature keep repeating that they are funding higher ed, the view from the ground up is that my tuition has increased by 25% in two years and it looks like it might increase by an additional $2000 per year if the COF is cut.

  If Reps. Keller and Schwartz claim that the COF is too difficult for the average college student to utilize, they should try applying for need-based financial aid in this state -- it's a nightmare.

• May 18, 2008

  8:27 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  westsidechan writes:

  Every parent / child in our circle of friends uses this... It's paperwork but far simpler than most college related paperwork one has to do to when going to college, and the ALL the colleges we have worked with are very good at reminding students this is available. The college administrators and politicians complaining about how complicated it is are just showing how disconnected they are from reality – there are tens of thousands of students who manage this just fine.

  For all the statistical over analysis and nit picking over procedure, taking it away would have a direct negative effect on many students ability to attend college. Put another way, how many of you believe redirecting the funding would result in colleges and universities reducing their tuition an equivalent amount?

  There is a huge silent majority of Colorado families that rely on this to some extent, and removing it would be disastrous.

• May 19, 2008

  11:40 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  Oh golly, who knew how hard it would be to get kids educated in Colorado? We're a family of natives suffering culture shock in our own home state.
  We too have 2 daughters, both high honor students at their HS in Bailey, struggling to make ends meet in college. So far as I know, COF has kicked in but maybe I should take a closer look. The mechanism is ridiculous but the benefit is indeed invaluable.

• May 19, 2008

  12:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  angka writes:

  "There is a huge silent majority of Colorado families that rely on this to some extent, and removing it would be disastrous."

  That's absurd. Prior to COF, the money directly went to the schools, instead of appearing on artificially higher tuition bills. The idea that it results in "less paperwork" for families is also false--they didn't have to do this before. Period.

  Do you work for the Independence Institute? They're the ONLY people who still think this was a good idea.

• May 21, 2008

  10:45 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mathwiz writes:

  I am not a fan of COF. I think there are huge problems with the whole program but I also think there is some confusion on the part of some of the other posters. You may be confusing COF with some other type of aid. This is not a type of financial aid that students need to apply for to receive.

  There are no "forms" to fill out. The student registers for the first time by going to a webpage and enters their name, ID number, and birth date – very easy. As long as the student is a Colorado resident (and hasn't used COF for 145 credits w/o a wavier) they are eligible to receive COF. After that it is as simple as clicking a button to authorize COF money to be applied to that semester's tuition. It is just a couple of mouse clicks when the student registers for classes. Not complicated at all to receive the money.

  The understanding of the process is another story. It is basically just a shell game with the money. Before the COF world, the student paid X amount of tuition for college and the state gave a lump sum to the college. After COF, the student is charge X + Y for college tuition, the student still pays the X amount; the state pays the Y amount and no lump sum. This way a student can see “how much” the state contributes to their education. Of course this has caused all kinds of problems for both the student and the intuitions.