The report also states that rates of student loan debt increased in every demographic group and economic category, and is particularly acute in the bottom and top ...]]> Nearly one in five American households maintains student loan debt, up from 15% in 2007 and 10% in 1989, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center.

The report also states that rates of student loan debt increased in every demographic group and economic category, and is particularly acute in the bottom and top fifth of income earners.

Heightened national awareness of the increase in student loan debt is aggravated by the decrease in reported household incomes since 2007. The Pew Center’s analysis of Survey of Consumer Finance data, a triennial survey of American household financial characteristics, indicates that mean annual household incomes fell from $91,275 in 2007 to $80,805 in 2010—an 11% dip.

Though the middle fifth to top fifth of income earners had the highest amounts of student loan debt, they were also more likely to have the resources to meet their debt obligations. In the lowest fifth of the income spectrum, student loans presented the greatest debt burden, constituting 24% of household income, up from 15% in 2007.

Age is also an important indicator. Households headed by those under age 45 owed 70% of the total outstanding student loan debt, which includes education loans currently in deferment or those in scheduled repayment plans.

A different report—Student Debt and the Class of 2010, published by the Project on Student Debt at the Institute for College Access and Success—found that students in New England were dealing with some of the nation’s highest rates of loan debt due to the region’s relatively high tuition prices and financial aid packages that fall short of meeting a student’s full need. Looking at the average debt of graduated college seniors from four-year institutions, New Hampshire ranked first nationally; Maine, second; Vermont, sixth; and Rhode Island, ninth.

Source: Data provided by Project on Student Debt at the Institute for College Access and Success.

Ashley Perzyna is a policy research intern at NEBHE.

Related Posts:

Time to Turn Attention to a Different Debt Limit: Downsize Federal Student Loan Programs

The New Indentured Educated Class

Average Student Loan Debt Grows by 6%; NE Hit Especially Hard

It’s over. Gone are the acrimonious debates, boisterous crowds, vicious campaign attack ads, incessant robo calls and campaign paraphernalia cluttering street corners, highways, lawns and sidewalks. The voters have spoken in New England and across the nation.

Nationally, Republicans swept races for governor, the state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. According to the National Conference of ...]]>

It’s over. Gone are the acrimonious debates, boisterous crowds, vicious campaign attack ads, incessant robo calls and campaign paraphernalia cluttering street corners, highways, lawns and sidewalks. The voters have spoken in New England and across the nation.

Nationally, Republicans swept races for governor, the state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Republicans now control the U.S. House of Representatives 240 to 186, where they added more than 60 seats, with nine races still to be resolved. In the U.S. Senate, Democrats managed to hang on by a margin of 53 to 46. The results of Alaska’s Senate race are still to be determined.

NCSL also reported that Republicans added seats in state legislatures across the U.S., with the largest gains in the East, especially in New England.

Republican gains in state legislatures by region

East                          229
Midwest                   211
South                        177
West                          94

Nationwide, Republicans picked up five additional governorships. NCSL reports that 32 states will be under new governors, including Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont. Four of the six New England governors are Democrats. An Independent and a Republican round out the field. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont will have new legislative leaders.

Voting trends

Nationwide, voting trends played a huge role in the outcome. Less than 21% of 18- to 29-year-olds showed up at the polls, compared with 51% in 2008, when President Barack Obama was elected.

Also, Independent voters switched their leanings in the 2010 elections, according to William A. Galston, senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. In 2006, 57% of Independents voted for Democrats, while 39% voted for Republicans. In the 2010 election, 55% of Independents chose Republicans, while 39% voted for Democrats. The Pew Research Center reports that “conservatives” as a share of total Independents rose from 29% in 2006 to 36% in 2010.”

Gallup reported similar results, adding that moderates declined from 46% to 41% from 2006 to 2010. The Blue Dog Coalition or Blue Dog Democrats—fiscal conservatives with centrist positions—lost its clout in the 2010 midterm elections. Less than half were re-elected. New England’s lone Blue Dog, Congressman, U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine, was re-elected surviving a challenge by Republican Jason Levesque.

Redistricting

With current voting trends expected to continue into the next election cycle, the role of state legislatures in 2012, will be especially significant as states begin the process of redistricting. The drawing of state legislative districts and congressional districts must include the latest census figures. The party in power has everything to say about how these districts will be drawn.

In the upcoming redistricting, Massachusetts is expected to lose one congressional seat, reducing the number of seats to nine. No other New England state is expected to lose any congressional seats.

The loss of an additional congressional seat contributes to an already gloomy outlook for the region, which had claimed key leadership positions when Democrats were the party in power in Washington.

The outlook for state budgets

For the past two budget cycles, governors and legislators have had to continue to make deep budget cuts but federal stimulus funds provided some help in preserving jobs and services. For FY 2012, with stimulus funds just about dried up, state budget cuts promise to be severe. Medicaid will continue to be a budget-buster in all states. Reducing health care costs will be a priority, as the Health Care Act or Obama Care requires that states develop systems where consumers can purchase health care by 2014. Governors are expressing concern that the technology required to design such systems will be extremely costly and there will be no funds for such expenses.

NCSL executive director William Pound expects higher education to be on the chopping block, as well, despite rhetoric form Democrats and Republicans that educational attainment is a key factor in restoring the American economy and making the U.S. competitive in the global marketplace.

New England highlights

• Democrat Dan Malloy wins governor’s race in Connecticut defeating Republican Tom Foley
• Democrat Richard Blumenthal will replace outgoing U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, also a Democrat.
• Connecticut Democratic U.S. House members prevail in hard-fought contests.
• Maine elects Republican Paul LePage as governor
• Republicans take control of Maine state Legislature
• Massachusetts re-elects Gov. Deval Patrick and all members of the Bay State’s congressional delegation
• Republicans pick up 15 seats in Massachusetts state Legislature
• Ballot question to cut sales tax is rejected by Massachusetts voters
• New Hampshire Republicans take back control of state Legislature
• Republican Kelly Ayotte wins U.S. Senate race, while fellow Republicans Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta, former mayor of Manchester, prevail in congressional races
• New Hampshire’s Democratic Gov. John Lynch is re-elected to unprecedented fourth term
• Rhode Island elects Lincoln Chafee, its first Independent governor in 156 years
• Vermonters elect Democrat Peter Shumlin as governor
• U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, wins easily
• Vermont voters give 17-year-olds the right to vote.

State by state

Connecticut elects Democratic governor, keeps Democrats in DC, statehouse

In a striking similarity to Florida’s 2000 presidential election results, Connecticut’s Secretary of State Susan Byciewicz found herself in the hot seat, as Bridgeport’s votes became the focus of determining the outcome of the governor’s race. After the final tallies of Bridgeport’s votes were made available on Friday, Nov. 5, Byciewicz’s office declared Malloy the winner in the governor’s race.

Attorney General Blumenthal will fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Dodd. Blumenthal defeated Linda McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment who poured $50 million of her own money into the race. In Connecticut’s congressional races, John Larson handily won his bid for re-election in the 1st district. Joe Courtney prevailed in the 2^nd district, while Rosa DeLauro won in the 3^rd district. Connecticut’s 4^th and 5^th districts saw the closest races where first term Congressman Jim Himes won a very close race against challenger state Sen. Dan Debicella in the 4^th district. Chris Murphy beat back a strong challenge from state Sen. Sam Caligiuri in Connecticut’s 5^th district.

Connecticut’s General Assembly remains under control of Democrats, though Republicans made inroads. The House is poised to re-elect Chris Donovan as speaker, while Don Williams has the support of his Democratic colleagues to continue as Senate president. Former House Majority Leader Denise Merrill won her bid for secretary of state.

Governor

Dannel Malloy (D) 4
Thomas Foley (R)
Tom Marsh (I)
Warren Mossler (I)

U.S. Senate
Richard Blumenthal (D) 4
Linda McMahon (R)

U. S. House of Representatives

District 1
John Larson (D) 4
Ann Brickley (R)

District 2
Joe Courtney (D) 4
Janet Peckinpaugh (R)

District 3
Rosa DeLauro (D) 4
Jerry Labriola (R)

District 4
James Himes (D) 4
Dan Debicella (R)

District 5
Christopher Murphy (D)4
Sam Caligiuri (R)

Maine goes Republican across the board

Republican Paul LePage, the mayor of Waterville, edged out Independent Elliot Cutler to become Maine’s first Republican governor since 1990. The Democrat, former Senate President Libby Mitchell, came in third.

In the state’s two congressional districts, Chellie Pingree , won re-election in the 1^st district and Michaud in the 2^nd district. Democrats did not fare as well in the state Legislature where Republicans now have 77-to-74 edge in the House and a 20-to-14 edge in the Senate, with one recount possible. This is the first time since the 1970s that Republicans have controlled both branches. Kevin Raye appears to have the support of his colleagues to lead the Senate. Four Republicans are vying for speaker of the House, including Stacey Fitts, Paul David, Patrick Flood and Robert Nutting. Emily Cain has expressed interest in the Minority Leader’s post. Cain chaired the Appropriations Committee. Seth Berry is also interested in this position. Republicans will caucus on Nov. 12 to elect their leaders; Democrats have tentatively scheduled a caucus for Nov. 18.

Maine voters approved a $5 million bond issue to increase access to dental care in Maine by a margin of 52% to 48%.

Governor

Paul LePage (R) 4
Elliot Cutler (I)
Libby Mitchell (D)

U.S. House of Representatives

District 1
Chellie Pingree (D) 4
Dean Scontras (R)

District 2
Michael Michaud (D) 4
Jason Levesque (R)

Massachusetts stays Democratic , small gains by GOP In Mass. House

Massachusetts voters re-elected Gov. Patrick who prevailed over Republican Charles Baker and Independent Tim Cahill. Massachusetts Democrats turned out in large numbers to mitigate the effects of the Scott Brown election and re-elected Democrats at every level. Patrick had 48% of the vote, Baker 42% and Cahill 8%.

All members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation running for re-election won handily. Retiring Congressman Bill Delahunt’s seat stayed in the Democratic column, going to District Attorney William Keating, who prevailed in a close election defeating Republican state Rep. Jeff Perry. Barney Frank who faced his toughest re-election to date, won 54% to Sean Bielat’s 43%.

Republicans did pick up 17 seats in the State House, the party’s largest gain in decades. There were no Republican gains in the Senate. The leadership in the House and Senate is not expected to change with Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo.

Voters rejected Question 3 on the ballot, which would have reduced the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. Voters also approved removing the sales tax on alcoholic beverages, which by state law is already subject to an excise tax. Revenue from the sales tax, however, had been allocated to support substance abuse and prevention programs.

Governor

Deval Patrick (D) 4
Charles Baker (R)
Tim Cahill (I)
Jill Stein (Green Party)

U.S. House of Representatives

District 1
John Olver (D) 4
Bill Gunn (R)
Michael Engel (I)

District 2
Richard Neal (D) 4
Tom Wesley (R)

District 3
Jim McGovern (D) 4
Marty Lamb (R)

District 4
Barney Frank (D) 4
Sean Bielat (R)

District 5
Niki Tsongas (D) 4
Jon Golnik (R),
Dale Brown (I)
Bob Clark (I)

District 6
John Tierney (D) 4
Bill Hudak (R)

District 7
Edward Markey (D) 4
Gerry Dembrowski (R)

District 8
Michael Capuano (D) 4

District 9
Stephen Lynch (D) 4
Vernon Harrison (R)
Phil Dunkelbarger (I)

District 10
William Keating (D) 4
Jeff Perry (R)
Maryanne Lewis (I)
Jim Sheets (I)
Joe VanNes (Bring Home the Troops)

New Hampshire sweeps in Republicans

New Hampshire followed a nationwide trend and elected Republicans to the U.S. Congress and the state legislature. Gov. Lynch, a Democrat, was elected to an unprecedented fourth two-year term.

Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes lost his bid for the U.S. Senate to state Attorney General Ayotte, who had the backing of New Hampshire Republicans as well as Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Republican Guinta beat incumbent Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire’s 1^st district, while former Congressman Bass edged out Democrat Ann Kuster in the 2^nd district.

Republicans swept elections in the state legislature, which is the largest legislative body in the United States with 424 members. It now appears that Republicans will control the House by a margin of 300 to 100. In June 2010, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 224 to 176. The New Hampshire Senate also went to Republicans who now outnumber Democrats, 19 to 5. Democrats held a majority of 14 to 10 for the past four years.

Governor

John Lynch (D) 4
John Stephen (R)

U.S. Senate

Kelly Ayotte (R) 4
Paul Hodes (D)

U.S. House of Representatives

District 1
Frank Guinta (R) 4
Carol Shea Porter (D)

District 2
Charlie Bass (R) 4
Ann Kuster (D)

RI elects Independent for gov, keeps Democrats in Congress, statehouse

For the first time in more than 150 years, Rhode Island voters elected a governor who is not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party. Independent Chafee edged out Republican John Robitaille 36% to 34%. with Democrat Frank Caprio placing third at 23%. President Obama did not endorse Caprio in what many saw as showing deference to Chafee who supported Obama for president.

In Rhode Island’s congressional races, U.S. Rep. James Langevin won re-election in Rhode Island’s 2^nd district, while Democratic Mayor of Providence, David Cicilline was elected in the 1^st district, replacing Patrick Kennedy, who did not seek re-election.

Rhode Island’s General Assembly remains in the hands of Democrats. Current Speaker Gordon Fox is expected to keep his post, while Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed appears to be the choice of her colleagues for the next legislative session.

Governor
Lincoln Chafee (I) 4
John Robitaille (R)
Frank Caprio (D)
Ken Block (Moderate Party)

U.S. House of Representatives

District 1
David Cicilline (D) 4
John Loughlin (R)
Gregory Raposa (I)

District 2
James Langevin (D) 4
Mark Zaccaria (R)

Vermont goes decidedly Democrat

Democrat Peter Shumlin was elected governor in a close race with Lt. Governor Brian Dubie. Only 4,000 votes separated the two candidates. Vermont law states that if both candidates get less than 50% of the vote, the legislature decides who will be elected. Dubie has indicated he has no intention of pursuing a challenge.

At the congressional level, both U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch won re-election.

Completing a decidedly Democratic victory at all level of government, the Vermont General Assembly remains in the hands of Democrats. The House gives Democrats a clear majority, 93 Democrats, 49 Republicans, five Progressives and three Independents. Republicans picked up a seat in the Senate, but Democrats control the chamber 22 to 8.

Vermont voters approved a ballot measure to give 17-year-olds the right to vote if they turn 18 by the time of the General Election.

Governor
Peter Shumlin (D) 4
Brian Dubie (R)

U.S. Senate

Patrick Leahy (D) 4
Len Britton (R)

U.S. House of Representatives
Peter Welch (D) 4
Paul Beaudry (R)

____________________________________________________________

Carolyn Morwick is a consultant at NEBHE and former director of the Caucus of New England State Legislatures.

The value of a college degree is well documented. College graduates earn at least 60% more than high school graduates. Beyond the economic value, college graduates show higher rates of civic participation, engage in volunteer work and even have a much higher likelihood of being “happy,” according to a 2005 survey by the Pew Research ...]]>

The value of a college degree is well documented. College graduates earn at least 60% more than high school graduates. Beyond the economic value, college graduates show higher rates of civic participation, engage in volunteer work and even have a much higher likelihood of being “happy,” according to a 2005 survey by the Pew Research Center. Students who drop out without attaining a college degree will forgo significant lifetime earnings and are likely to be saddled with debt that may impact their ability to buy a car, a house or even return to finish their education at a later date. And the consequences for failing are not just for the students who leave. Our economy, and many argue our democracy, depends on maintaining and building an educated workforce and citizenry. Most of our efforts over the past decade have focused on college access and we have made progress in preparing students to aspire to and apply to college. However, given our poor track record of graduating students, we have much work to do to help students attain a college degree. The data show that only about half the students who enroll in college end up earning a four-year college degree. This statistic has not changed much in over a decade. Yet the stakes have increased since President Obama took office. He has committed to increasing the number of high school graduates who enter and succeed in college, understanding that completing the degree is the prerequisite for career success.

The reasons for student attrition have been researched and documented and include: lack of finances, lack of preparation and poor fit between expectations and what students experience once they arrive on campus. An entire industry has been created to assess students and assess the campus environment, and the literature is abundant with best practices in student retention. My own campus employs many of them: early alert and mid-semester warnings, academic tutoring, peer mentoring, financial literacy programs and a first-year seminar to ease the transition to college. Despite all these efforts, we still lose more students than we’d like and are stymied about how to improve our retention and their academic success. We have developed a multitude of programs to focus on student success, but to some extent our approach is to do these for or to the student; too often the students themselves haven’t been true partners in efforts to help them succeed.

High school students may have a pretty good understanding of what they need to do to get into college, and of the importance of attending college for career and financial success, but they have an undeveloped and even unrealistic understanding of what it takes to successfully transition, persist and graduate from college. As I think about our students, I see a persistent and pervasive gap between what students are expected to be able to do in college and what students actually come prepared to do. Even those students who test into college-level courses—based on their performance on entering placement tests—seem to lack crucial academic knowledge and skills and appear ill-prepared for the demands of college-level work.

Students bring with them the habits and attitudes that may have been “good enough” to get by in high school but will not support their success in college where “passing” is not enough to maintain sufficient academic progress toward a degree. If they don’t get a C or better in developmental and foundation courses—also know as the “gatekeeping” courses—they cannot progress and lose time and money without reaching their goal. Too often students exert the minimal effort that they perceive will be good enough to pass the course. They seem more focused on getting through the course rather than learning the content and skills which can inform their work and lives. This is especially true when they don’t readily see the point of what they are learning—typically in their general education and developmental courses which they view as too much like high school.

Many of our faculty work hard to “meet students where they are,” allow for extra credit work, and encourage students to meet with them outside of class for further instruction or clarification. Still, too many students don’t take advantage of these opportunities and seem either unable or unwilling to seek assistance. However, I don’t believe that this is because they don’t want to be in college or they don’t wish to succeed.

The fact is that while many students have the expectations and aspirations to pursue their college dreams, they are unprepared for the work. Despite the reports stressing the need for a rigorous college-preparatory curriculum in high school, many high school graduates enter college lacking the academic habits and skills—including how to read a textbook and take notes as well as study and organizational skills—necessary to successfully transition to college-level expectations.

Beyond academic preparation, one explanation for the high school-to-college achievement gap is what Seton Hall professor Rebecca Cox calls “the college fear factor.” The students she studied know that a college degree is essential to their future success in life and careers but bring tremendous anxiety to the experience. Many bring past experiences with failure in an academic context. And typically, this gets reinforced on their first day of college where they have to “pass or fail” a placement test to see if they are deemed ready for college-level work. They come to college acutely aware of their past failures and lack of readiness and this feeds their self-doubts about whether they will be able to succeed.

So why don’t students reach out to professors who say that “their office doors are open” and they are “always available to meet with students”? Cox believes that students are afraid professors will confirm their academic inadequacy. Because of these fears, students end up not employing the very strategies that will help them such as meeting with professors outside of class, asking for help or asking questions in class for fear of being exposed as stupid. They don’t ask questions, seek outside help from faculty or their peers and may even skip class rather than risk seeming ignorant or slow. Unfortunately, these behaviors only exacerbate the problem. Students may be afraid to even admit this to themselves and usually have no one to turn to who can help them sort through these feelings. This is especially true for students who may be the first in their families to go to college. Finally, too few students see themselves as having some measure of control about their ability to succeed or fail. Those who struggle are more likely to attribute it to bad luck or factors they see as out of their influence. Students see themselves as passive recipients of their professors’ knowledge rather than viewing learning as an interaction between the professor and student. They typically rely on the faculty member to “teach them what they need to know” which usually translates to what will be on the test. This may be attributed to previous school experience or stage of cognitive development or possibly both. Helping students become active participants in their own learning requires skilled teaching, however this is almost never part of most faculty members’ graduate preparation. Research on Latino students by Laura I. Rendón, professor of higher education and chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Iowa State University, indicates that students who persist are actively engaged by key adults (who may or may not be their instructors) also known as “validating agents” who take an active interest in and provide encouragement for students and affirm their ability to do academic work. These are people who, in the words of one of our students, “… believed in me before I even believed in myself.”

Increasing student readiness for college is important, but we also need to improve our ability to better serve students. Instead of adding program upon program to the array of services we provide students, I believe we need to fundamentally rethink the first year of college for the increasing numbers of students who come to us who aren’t “hard-wired” for success. Vincent Tinto, distinguished university professor at Syracuse University and widely known expert on student attrition, suggests that unless institutions of higher education do something to reshape the prevailing educational experiences of students during their first year of college and address the deeper roots of their continued lack of success, then we should not expect to see results any different from what we have experienced over the past few decades. Imagine if colleges were ranked by how much students learn once they arrive rather than by how much they need to learn before they enter. While this requires a larger cultural shift, in the meantime, there are a number of systemic models for what a program or a college that is focused on student success might look like.

The City University of New York has come up with a bold plan for a new college structured to improve student success. The college will engage students at admission in developing an educational plan and establishing connections with faculty and staff who will advise, register and help students apply for aid. Beginning in a three-week summer bridge program, students will complete a variety of assessments to diagnose learning strengths and weaknesses and begin to develop the skills and strategies necessary to succeed in their courses. Students will take a required first-year core curriculum integrating liberal arts and professional studies which will lead to a second- and third-year program that places students in linked courses along with internships. Finally, advising and student support services will be “wrapped” around students, and students will work either on campus or in a setting with partner employers.

Another effort is the Foundation Year Program currently being piloted in Northeastern University’s College of Professional Studies. It entails a structured year-long full-time college-based program that begins with a six-week summer program followed by three 12-week quarters in the fall, winter and spring. An intensive five-day a week schedule includes both credit-bearing and noncredit academic courses as well as supported study time, college and career exploration and leadership, wellness and youth development programming. Additionally, in the winter and spring terms students spend two afternoons per week in internship rotations. The program provides a dedicated student advisor and four full-time faculty who offer writing and math instruction, tutoring and advising to a cohort of 40 students. Though in its first year, program participants are expected to continue as sophomores either at Northeastern or at selected partner institutions.

A well-known approach that isn’t institutionally based is the Posse Foundation’s model, which creates a “posse” or cohort of students who act as a support system for one another in order to succeed in college. Posse Scholars are recruited while still in high school and spend their senior year preparing for their college experience. They meet weekly in workshops that build skills around team-building and group support, cross-cultural communication and leadership. Once they have matriculated, Posse staff visit each university four times a year to meet with Posse Scholars, campus liaisons and mentors. Each mentor meets weekly with the Posse as a team and with each scholar individually every two weeks during the first two years of college. This program recognizes the importance of preparation prior to matriculation and support while in college and to arming students with the skills and tools to be active participants in their own success. It demonstrates that the transition to college needs to begin while students are still in high school and suggests that we might rethink the senior year of high school—especially the second half of the senior year—to focus not just on getting into college, but on getting through college. This could include opportunities for dual enrollment to enable students to experience college-level expectations and assignments while they are still in high school and early placement testing so that students can get information on their academic strengths and remediate areas in which they are weak so that they enter college prepared for post-secondary level work. High schools could also offer the equivalent of a college success course including time management, study skills, reading a textbook and writing a college-level research paper so that students do not have to learn these skills while simultaneously being enrolled in college courses.

Too often college access and success are viewed separately with secondary schools shouldering the responsibility for college enrollment and colleges being accountable for student persistence. The result is typically finger-pointing and blame: High school folks say that colleges need to do a better job of graduating their students while those who work at colleges say that their students would succeed if only high schools did a better job preparing them. The truth is we will never achieve the goal of raising college attainment levels unless we work across sectors to close the gap between high school and college preparation and performance to ensure that students successfully transition and graduate from college.

___________________________________________________________________________

Deborah Hirsch is associate vice president for academic affairs at Mount Ida College.