1. The Value of a Dollar: A Survey of
State Financing and Tuition
Policies
Marcie Foster, CLASP and Lennox McLendon, NCSDAE
Annual Conference of the Commission on Adult Basic
Education and The Virginia Association for Adult &
Continuing Education (VAACE)
April 11, 2012

2. CLASP and NCSDAE
• The Center for Law and Social Policy develops and
advocates for policies that improve the lives of low-
income people.
• The National Council of State Directors of Adult
Education (NCSDAE) establishes and maintains a
nationwide communication network regarding national
policy and legislative issues.
2

3. Perfect Storm of Adult Education
Financing
New Demands for Adult Education
• New Focus on Alignment with
Workforce/CTE/Postsecondary
• Meeting Credential Attainment Goals with
Declining Traditional HS population
• Growing immigrant population
Declining or Unstable
Resource Availability
• Federal/State/Local
• New attention on tuition/fee policies
• Costs of new GED in 2014
3

4. Topics Covered in the Survey
How GED
Sources of Costs to
Funds are Testing
Funding Students
Distributed Fees
Federal
State Typical Fees
State Tuition
Legislature
State Policies
State Agency
Local
State Policy on
Charging Fees
Tuition State Agency Typical
Programs/ Tuition/Fee Anticipated
Institutions Levels Changes in
Discretionary
Resources 2014
4

5. Methodology
• This survey was administered in February 2012 through
an online survey instrument.
• Distributed to State Directors of Adult Education in all 50
states plus the District of Columbia.
• In March 2012, CLASP followed up with respondents to
clarify answers and, in some cases, to obtain detailed
information on a particular tuition policy or financing
structure.
5

6. Survey Limitations
• 43 states responded to the survey.
• The breadth and depth of local funding for adult education was not
able to be captured, due to lack of adequate reporting of these types
of funds.
• States vary widely in terms of governance, state law, and policy;
nearly impossible to uniformly compare.
• Not a causal analysis.
6

7. Survey States
Labor/Workforce
Community Colleges/Postsecondary
K-12/Education
7

8. Survey States
• Size*
 Most Students: California (392,918 students), New York (122,833), and
North Carolina (115,312)
 Fewest Students: North Dakota (1,581), Vermont (1,590), and South
Dakota (2,423)
• ESL Students*
 Highest Proportion: Nevada (77 percent), California (66 percent), and
Colorado (61 percent)
 Lowest Proportion: Mississippi (1 percent), Montana (6 percent), and
Louisiana (6 percent)
*These figures are from 2010 National Reporting System Data and may not reflect the total number of adult education students in the state.
8

9. Main Sources of Funding for
Adult Education
• Only requirement is federal 25%
Tuition matching requirement using
1%
nonfederal funds.
Local
9% • Availability of local data on funding
varies as does the availability of
local funding. (25 states reported
Federal no local funding.)
45%
State
45% • Small revenue from tuition reflects
the few number of states that
charge tuition for courses.
• $1.20 in nonfederal funds for
every $1 of federal funding.
9

10. Local Funding for Adult Education Varies Widely
• 17 states reported local funding contributions for adult education services.
These states ranged from reporting that 44 percent to 4 percent of their
funding comes from local sources.
Connecticut 44
Wisconsin 43
Colorado 40
Montana 36
Kansas 28
Maryland 26
Nebraska 25
New Hampshire 23
Massachussetts 20
Virginia 15
Pennsylvania 15
Ohio 15
Indiana 11
Tennessee 10
Rhode Island 10
Georgia 7
Nevada 4
0 10 20 30 40 50
10

11. Percentage of State Contribution of Total
Adult Education Funding
14 13
12
12
10 9
8
6 5
4 3
2
0
No state funding Contribute 25 Contribute 26 - 50 Contribute 51 -75 Contribute 76
percent or less percent percent percent and over
11

12. How States Distribute Federal Funds to
Local Providers – 34+ Distinct Formulas
• 27 states use a formula that takes into account a combination of
enrollments, past performance, and eligible population.
• 7 states use a formula that takes into account only one of the
following: enrollments, past performance, or eligible population.
• Common performance indicators:
 Educational functioning level gains,
 Number of GED’s/Adult High School Diplomas awarded, and
 Number of contact hours.
• NRS outcomes are a significant driver.
12

13. How States Distribute State Funding to
Local Providers
• 22 states distribute all state funding in the same way as
federal funds; 18 do not.
• Respondents commonly reported that state funds are
distributed based on past performance, but sometimes given
different “weights” than the federal funds.
• Other states in this category use the funds in completely
different ways:
 providing funds to supplement what federal funds do not cover,
 providing a portion of services solely on a specific
population, such as young adults.
13

14. Equity Considerations in Performance
Funding
• At least one state awarded double performance points for
programs that helped students at the lowest basic skill
levels move to a higher educational functioning level.
• Many states report using population data as a factor in
the distribution of funds. This can be key to ensuring that
all counties in the state have equitable access to funding.
 These states then use a competitive grant process to
distribute funds based on the state’s priorities, including
the use of performance funding.
14

15. Access to Special Discretionary
Resources
•19 states indicated they used special discretionary resources to incent local
innovation, such as dual enrollment in postsecondary coursework, team teaching,
contextualization, workplace literacy, or others.
•States, institutions, and programs with existing partnerships are better positioned to
apply for funding for competitive federal grants (e.g. TAACCCT, WIF)
Federal State Local
WIA Title II – State State Adult Education Community Colleges
Leadership Funding (8) Funding (2) (1)
WIA Title II – Grants to Special Funds from the Foundation and
Local Providers (3) State Legislature (4) Business (1)
WIA Incentive Funds (4)
WIA Title I Discretionary
Funds (2)
Wagner-Peyser (1)
15

16. State Tuition Policies
• Programs that receive federal WIA Title II funds are
allowed to charge tuition/fees to students provided that
they are “necessary and reasonable and do not impose a
barrier to the participation of disadvantages persons that
the program was designed to serve.” However, states can
further define tuition and fee policies.
• In the survey, tuition/fees were defined as costs beyond
those for materials, which are often charged to students
to cover the expenses related to course materials or
textbooks.
16

17. State Tuition and Fee Policies
States Tuition and/or Fee Policy
Require local programs to charge fees and set the tuition/fee level
2 (HI, WA)
Allow programs to charge tuition/fees
21 (AZ, CA, CO, IL*, IN, IA, KS, MD*,MI, MN, MO, NE, NV, NH*, OK, RI, SC,
TX*, UT, VA, WY)
Prohibit local programs from charging tuition/fees
20 (AL, AR, CT, DE, GA, ID, KY, LA, MA, MS, MT, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SD,
TN, VT, WI)
*State only allows tuition to be charged to students with 9th grade level skills or above.
17

18. State Tuition and Fee Policies
• Among states in which local programs determined funds, many states
generally still played a significant role.
 Must be approved by the state
 Maximum tuition determined by state statute
• Did not collect data on the “average” tuition/fees charged by local
programs in the state that allowed this practice.
• Tuition levels low even if required by the state:
 $10 per student per course
 $25 per student/quarter (can be waived by institutions in the case of
financial hardship)
• Does not include Florida, which has new statewide tuition policies that
differ based on in-state and out-of-state residency.
18

19. A Balancing Act: Charging Tuition/Fees
Pro
Charging students a modest Too high tuition or lack of financial
tuition level helps them feel waivers can lead to drops in
more engaged in their enrollment, despite increased
demand.
education.
High tuition/fees can exhaust a
Can lead to shift to managed student’s savings (if any) that they
enrollment, which leads to need for postsecondary education
better persistence and or training.
improved student attendance.
Easier to monitor with managed
Tuition can represent a modest enrollment systems.
revenue stream for programs.
Charging fees without additional
student supports may not change
persistence, engagement that
much.
Con
Cost of collection and
enforcement could be higher than
revenue collected.
19

20. State GED Testing Fees
• New GED is coming in 2014, with implications for testing
fees and administrative policies.
 Computer-based;
 More rigorous; Two cut scores indicate two different levels
of proficiency;
 Flat fee per content area test; and
 Re-testing fees for non-passers.
• Little information on the financial burden this will cause
students, but widespread concern from practitioners and
states.
20

21. State GED Testing Fees
States GED® Testing Fees
Charge students a flat, uniform testing fee
27 (AL, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MA, MS, MT, NV, NH, NC,
OH, RI, SC, SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI)
Allow local programs to determine the testing fee
13
(AZ, CA, CO, LA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OK, PA, TN, TX, WY)
Do not charge a testing fee
3
(AR, MO, NY)
21

22. Distribution of GED Testing Fees in States
with a Flat Fee
Georgia $128
Wisconsin $120
Iowa $100
Idaho $100
South Dakota $95
Indiana $95
Hawaii $95
Utah $85
Kansas $85
South Carolina $80
Median Value $75
Washington $75
Vermont $75
Mississippi $75
Delaware $75
New Hampshire $65
Massachussetts $65
Nevada $60
Kentucky $60
Virginia $58
Rhode Island $55
Montana $55
Illinois $50
Alabama $50
Maryland $45
Ohio $40
North Carolina $25
Connecticut $13
$- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140
22

23. Locally-Determined GED Testing Fees
Vary, Still Relatively Low
Average Median Cost of GED® to Students
$71 $75 Cost in States that Charge a Flat Fee
$59 $55
Low-End of the Cost Range in States that Allow local
(Low) (Low)
programs to determine the cost for students
$112 $100 High-End of the Cost Range in States that Allow local
(High) (High) programs to determine the cost for students
23

24. New GED in 2014 Will Mean Higher Costs
for Most Students
• Among states that charge a flat fee (27), only 2 charge at
least $120, and one is a CBT pilot state.
• Among states that allow programs to locally determine
GED testing fees (13), only 5 states reported the
maximum fee that some of their local programs charge
can be above $120.
 For the vast majority of students, a GED testing fee
of $120 for the full battery of tests will represent a stark
cost increase.
24

25. Changes to State Policy to Keep the GED
Affordable to Students
Anticipate State Policy Changes to Help Keep the
GED Affordable for Students (21 States)
• Allocating more funding at the agency level to help offset the cost
of the test to students,
• Pursuing changes in state law that prohibit funds being used to
subsidize the test, or
• Working with other state systems, such as workforce development
or social services, to identify new resources for GED test-takers.
• 9 states are seeking an alternative assessment.
Do Not Anticipate State Policy Changes to Help
Keep the GED Affordable for Students (22 States)
• Cannot afford to do this and continue to offer instructional services
in light of declining resources.
• Difficult to do with a new for-profit structure.
• Corporations/Employers may play a role.
25

26. Q &A
• Full report will be released in April/May 2012!
Marcie Foster
Center for Law and Social Policy (www.clasp.org)
Lennox McLendon
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
(www.ncsdae.org)
26